midi_estimate_key

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the algorithm and return values but lacks details on performance, limitations (e.g., empty clips, non-tonal music), or how to interpret confidence. This is insufficient for an AI agent to predict side effects or constraints.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices important details, making it slightly too terse. It efficiently conveys the core purpose but omits necessary usage context.

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 (3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify 'track_index' or 'clip_index' within an .als file, nor does it mention that the tool may require prior context from sibling tools like 'als_list_tracks'. The output schema is present but the description only hints at return values.

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 input schema has 3 required parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description does not explain what 'path', 'clip_index', or 'track_index' mean, whether indices are zero-based, or how to obtain them. Schema coverage is low and description fails to compensate.

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 verb 'Estimate', the resource 'key of a MIDI clip in an .als file', and specifies the algorithm used. It is distinct from siblings like 'midi_guess_chords' which deals with chords, not key estimation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related tools like 'als_list_clips' and 'midi_guess_chords', but the description does not clarify if prerequisites or alternative uses exist.

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