generate_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the output type conceptually (MIDI key numbers and note names) but does not state whether this is a pure calculation, whether it modifies the project, or what error behavior to expect.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a concise Args block. Every line adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description is minimally viable for a simple generator tool, especially since an output schema exists. However, it lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral context, and with no annotations it does not fully clarify whether the tool is side-effect free or how its output should be integrated.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning by giving a root note example ('C4', 'A3'), enumerating all accepted scale types, and explaining num_octaves. It does not state constraints like valid ranges, but it is far more informative than the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a musical scale as MIDI key numbers and note names.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like note_name_to_key or add_note, which target single-note conversion or placement rather than scale generation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention relationships to note_name_to_key, key_to_note_name, or add_note tools, so the agent must infer its role purely from the name and summary.

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