Fl Capture Played Notes

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining side effects. It does not disclose whether the captured notes overwrite existing pattern data, append to them, or require a specific pattern selection. The phrase 'dump score log' hints at a bulk write but leaves destructive behavior unclear.

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, compact sentence that gets to the point. The extra phrase 'dump score log' is somewhat redundant and could confuse, but it does not significantly bloat the text. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description omits important context such as whether a pattern must be selected, what happens if no pattern is active, and how the captured notes are integrated (replace or merge). It also does not mention any return value or confirmation, despite an output schema being present. This makes it incomplete for a tool that modifies pattern data.

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?

The only parameter 'seconds' aligns with the 'last N seconds' phrase, making its purpose clear. However, the description does not elaborate on valid ranges, default behavior, or edge cases like zero or negative values. Since the schema provides no description, the parameter semantics are only partially covered.

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 writes MIDI notes played live into the selected pattern, which is a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'dump score log' adds some ambiguity but does not obscure the core purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like fl_notes_add or fl_channel_audition by focusing on capturing live performance over a time window.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fl_notes_add or fl_notes_edit. It implies a scenario of capturing live input but does not state prerequisites or conditions. There is no mention of when this tool is preferred over other note-adding methods.

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