Fl Channel Audition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the action is 'preview only, not recorded,' which is a key behavioral trait—it does not commit to a recording. However, it omits other important behaviors, such as whether the audition affects the channel's internal state, whether it sends MIDI to external devices, or whether it requires specific audio output settings. The single qualifier is helpful but incomplete for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and usage context. It is concise but under-specified, striking an imbalance between efficiency and completeness. The structure is clean but does not earn high marks because it omits critical information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (four parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of 'channel,' the range or default of note/velocity, the role of duration, or the expected return value. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without external knowledge of FL Studio's API conventions. The output schema exists but is not reflected in the description, and the description offers no context on when or how to use it.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (note, index, velocity, duration_ms). It does not clarify what 'note' means (MIDI note number?), what 'index' refers to (channel index?), how velocity is scaled, or what duration_ms controls. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the raw schema, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 plays a note on a channel now, with the explicit qualifier 'preview only, not recorded.' This distinguishes it from other channel-related tools like fl_channel_set or fl_channel_steps, which modify settings or patterns, while this one is a real-time audition. The verb 'play' and resource 'channel' are specific, and the preview-only qualifier adds crucial differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., channel must exist, FL Studio must be running) or contexts where it is appropriate or inappropriate. No sibling alternatives are referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and brief description.

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