get_clip_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation with no side effects, and lists the returned fields. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid indices or audio clips) and does not mention any constraints beyond the tool being for MIDI clips.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences plus parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first explains functionality and returned fields, the second restricts to MIDI clips. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (reading MIDI notes, 2 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, returned fields, parameter meanings, and type constraint. Minor gaps include lack of error behavior and absence of any mention of the output schema. But overall, it is substantially complete for a read operation.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains track_index as 'The track holding the clip' and clip_index as 'The clip slot index (Session scene - 1)', providing meaningful context beyond the raw schema. This is sufficient for a 2-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'actual MIDI notes of a clip', and specifies the returned fields (pitch, start_time, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by limiting to MIDI clips only, and the sibling list includes related notes tools, making the purpose distinct.

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 clear context by specifying 'MIDI clips only', which implies when not to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or update_notes, nor does it state when to use this tool over others. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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