Diagnose TDAbleton Mapper

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that repair modifies parameters but is safe without external connections. It mentions reporting symptoms but lacks specificity on what symptoms are identified.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the main action ('Inspect... and its source CHOP') followed by optional repair behavior. No wasted words.

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 is moderately complex with 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers inspecting and repairing but does not enumerate possible symptoms or output format. Given high schema coverage, it is largely adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context by linking to 'Oscinputchop, Reorder, Bypass, and Min/Max parameters,' which are not explicit in schema but relate to the 'repair' and 'expected_reorder' fields.

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 inspects a TDAbleton mapper COMP and its source CHOP, and optionally repairs specific parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'setup_tdableton' or 'create_hand_ableton_mapper' by focusing on diagnosis and repair.

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 explicitly notes that repairs can be done 'without requiring AbletonMCP or a live Ableton connection,' providing a key usage context. However, it does not specify when to use alternatives like 'repair_network' or when not to use this tool.

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