MIDI → Strudel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains key conversion details: quantization to a step grid, chords as [a,b], rests as ~, and elongation as @. This is informative but could be more explicit about edge cases like overlapping notes or input validation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core conversion action, and every sentence adds essential detail. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (conversion with quantization, chords, rests, elongation) and no output schema, the description covers the output format and transformation rules well. It is complete for typical use, though missing info on error handling or parameter effects.

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 60% (notes, grid, conv have descriptions; bars and octaveOffset do not). The description does not mention any parameters, but it clarifies the input format (pitch, start, duration in beats) which adds value beyond the schema for the notes array. However, it does not compensate for missing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool converts MIDI note events into Strudel mini-notation text, including quantization and handling of simultaneous notes, gaps, and held notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strudel_to_midi and strudel_validate.

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 usage context is implied by the tool name and description (convert MIDI to Strudel), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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