get_notes_from_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Read' (non-destructive) and outlines the returned note fields, but it does not disclose units for start_time/duration, velocity range, or behavior on empty clips. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return info and an alternative. The Args section is necessary and brief. No redundant 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and an alternative. Minor gaps include units and edge-case behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based index of the clip slot.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Read all MIDI notes from a clip.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_notes_extended by listing the exact fields, making the tool's scope immediately apparent.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use get_notes_extended instead ('Prefer get_notes_extended when you need probability, velocity_deviation, or release_velocity per note'), which implies this tool is for basic note-reading needs. This provides direct comparison and selection guidance.

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