Previsualizar limpieza MIDI

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the phrase 'sin crear ni cambiar archivos' is somewhat redundant. The description adds that it compares MIDI/WAV and returns a complete plan, but does not elaborate on what the plan contains or any prerequisites. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action and outcome. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or option details. However, it lacks any connection to sibling tools like clean_midi_files or explicit conditions for use, leaving a noticeable gap in contextual guidance for a preview tool with moderate complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It only mentions 'MIDI/WAV', which maps to midi_path and audio_path, but provides no guidance on the 'options' object, file path formats, or default behavior. The detailed schema offers partially compensating structure, but the description itself adds minimal parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Compara MIDI/WAV y devuelve el plan completo sin crear ni cambiar archivos.' It uses a specific verb ('compara'), names the resources (MIDI/WAV), and clarifies scope ('sin crear ni cambiar archivos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clean_midi_files which likely apply changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage as a safe dry-run preview by stating no files are changed, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like clean_midi_files or analyze_midi. There is no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, so usage is contextually implied rather than explicitly explained.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.