get_song_scale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the useful detail that values reflect the scale as configured in Live 12, but says nothing about behavior when no scale is set or how intervals are represented. With annotations carrying the main load, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the returned components in parentheses, with zero filler or redundant restatement of the title. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only missing piece is routing guidance toward set_song_scale when the agent intends to change rather than read the scale, which is a small but real gap in a large sibling set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument meaning the description needs to compensate for. The parenthetical listing root note, scale name, and intervals is genuinely helpful as a preview of returned fields, though the output schema already defines them.

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 names a specific resource ("the song's key and scale") and enumerates what that consists of (root note, scale name, intervals), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling set_song_scale, but the get/set naming pair makes the direction unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading scale data is the obvious use, and the existence of a sibling set_song_scale suggests this is the read counterpart. There is no explicit "use this when" statement, no mention that mutation should go to set_song_scale, and no note about Live 12 requirements being a precondition.

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