get_midi_notes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'all notes' scope and a basic return shape, but does not disclose behavior such as note ordering, empty-item behavior, or how the optional fields parameter affects results.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to scan. The 'Returns:' clause is somewhat generic but acceptable given the lack of an output schema. There is minor redundancy with the tool name, but no real filler.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides only minimal context. It does not explain the structure of the returned notes, the meaning of the fields parameter, or how the output relates to other MIDI note tools, leaving important gaps for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it only vaguely references 'an item.' track_index and item_index are not explicitly clarified, and fields is entirely undocumented beyond its schema default and type.

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 action and resource: 'Get all MIDI notes from an item.' It conveys the core purpose and scope, but does not differentiate it from closely related siblings such as get_midi_item or get_selected_midi_notes.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a different MIDI note tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and parameters.

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