chord_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that ('without writing them'). It adds nothing about how voicings are chosen, what the default 'close' style does musically, or any limits on chord names — the useful behavioral context beyond annotations is thin.

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?

One compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. It is close to optimally sized, though the trailing example clause is the only place usage context appears, so the structure is efficient but slightly unbalanced.

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?

A simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. Still, the unexplained 'style' parameter and the absence of any sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among the many chord/progression tools here.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does not. 'Notes of each voicing' hints that the chords parameter accepts chord symbols, but the 'style' parameter (default 'close') — likely the most consequential control over the output — is never mentioned or explained.

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?

Names a concrete operation (spell chords into notes/voicings) and implicitly contrasts with writing tools via 'without writing them'. However, it never names the closest siblings (write_chords, write_progression, find_progressions), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'e.g. to check a progression' hints at a use case, and 'without writing them' implies this is for inspection rather than mutation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so routing between this and the write_* or find_progressions tools is left to inference.

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