als_extract_midi

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

The description suggests a read-only operation (extracting data) but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. Since annotations are absent, the description partially covers transparency, but lacks detail on whether the tool modifies any state or requires specific access.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and output format.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and three required parameters. The description covers the output format and the two clip-identifying parameters, but the missing explanation of 'path' leaves a gap. For a simple extraction tool, the description is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema shows three parameters (path, track_index, clip_index) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by track index and clip index' but does not explain 'path', leaving the user to infer its meaning. The description adds value for two parameters but entirely misses the third.

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 action (Extract MIDI notes) and the target (one clip by track and clip index), and specifies the output format (pitch/start/duration/velocity tuples). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'live_arrangement_set_clip_notes' by focusing on extraction, but does not explicitly differentiate from other MIDI analysis tools.

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 provides minimal guidance, only implying that track and clip indices are needed. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'midi_note_stats' or 'als_list_clips'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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