theory_scale

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying exactly what information is returned, which matters because there is no output schema; it could still say more about output structure.

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?

Two sentences, both useful: the first front-loads the returned musical data, and the second immediately gives a practical usage cue. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return contents and a usage context. It is nearly complete, though a little more detail about the output shape would make it fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the root and mode parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only the general idea of a key and the middle-C octave for MIDI notes, not additional parameter semantics beyond the 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 the exact resource and contents: seven scale degrees with names, pitch classes, MIDI notes in the middle-C octave, plus diatonic chords as numerals, triads, and sevenths. It is clear what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby theory tools such as theory_chord or theory_progression.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: staying in key when writing melodies and bass lines. It does not explain when to avoid this tool or route to a sibling like theory_harmonize or theory_chord, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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