小節の伸び縮み

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: values are clamped to 0.1–10 at MuseScore render time, and measure indices are 1-based with a pickup-measure offset caveat. It omits mutation-relevant facts such as whether the change is persisted, whether score_save is needed, or whether score_undo reverses it.

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 action and its parameter semantics are front-loaded in the first clause, and the trailing parentheticals each add distinct operational value (numbering caveat, cross-reference to layout_inspect). No sentence is redundant.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the value scale, the range semantics, the index-base caveat, and where to verify index correspondence via layout_inspect. Return values are not needed since the effect is a setting write, and the remaining gaps are minor.

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 only 50% (from and value have no schema descriptions), and the description compensates well: it defines value's scale (1 = standard, >1 wider, <1 narrower, clamped 0.1–10) and explains that measures are 1-based sequence numbers with a display-number mismatch caveat. The from/to range pairing is only implied by 範囲, and score_id is left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific verb (設定する) and resource (小節の範囲の伸び縮み / userStretch), which is clearly distinct from siblings like layout_set_break, layout_systems_every, and layout_fit_pages. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those alternatives, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the subject matter: use it to widen or narrow a measure range. The description never states when to prefer this over layout_fit_pages or layout_systems_every, nor any prerequisites such as the score being open, so guidance remains inferential.

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