midi_note_stats

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies the clip, or any side effects. The phrase 'per-clip note stats' implies a read, but this is not explicit, leaving the agent uncertain about safety.

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 very concise (one line) and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve clarity.

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 presence of an output schema (declared but not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about parameter relationships and error handling (e.g., what if clip doesn't exist). It is minimally adequate for a simple stats tool.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (path, track_index, clip_index). It does not explain how these identify the clip or their expected formats, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 returns per-clip note statistics (count, range, density, pitch-class histogram). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like midi_estimate_key or midi_guess_chords, which focus on different analyses.

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 (e.g., midi_estimate_key for key estimation, als_extract_midi for raw data). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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