key_to_note_name

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states the core conversion behavior, but it does not disclose details like octave naming convention, sharp/flat preference, or behavior on invalid key values. Still, the operation is clearly a pure conversion with no side effects.

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 minimal and front-loaded: one clear sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact Args block. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter pure conversion utility with an output schema available, the description is largely complete. It covers the input semantics and range. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning the inverse sibling or note formatting convention, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It does well by adding 'MIDI key number (0-127)', giving both the semantic meaning and the valid range beyond the bare integer type in the schema. It does not over-explain, but this is sufficient for a single required parameter.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Convert a MIDI key number to its note name.' This unambiguously states the operation and direction, and it naturally contrasts with the sibling tool note_name_to_key, which performs the inverse conversion.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus note_name_to_key or other siblings. The intended use is implied by the description and tool name, but the 'when-not-to-use' or alternative routing is left to the agent to infer.

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