Fl Music Theory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'music theory lookup', which implies read-only but does not explicitly state it, nor does it mention parameter precedence, error handling, or what happens if multiple parameters are set. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists capabilities. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the parenthetical list of scale types adds some clutter. Overall it is efficient and 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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters with no required fields, but the description does not explain how to use octave, what happens if no parameters are provided, or how multiple query types interact. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks essential usage context for a tool with this 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. It explains the meaning of scale_root+scale, chord, and note, but completely omits the octave parameter and does not clarify interactions or defaults. It partially covers parameter semantics but leaves gaps, especially for octave and how parameters combine.

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 performs music theory lookups for scale notes, chord notes, and MIDI note names, with concrete examples like 'Dm' and 'C/E'. This is distinct from sibling tools like fl_music_progression and fl_music_drums, which are about generating progressions and drum patterns, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (for theory lookups) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to siblings, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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