譜面を開く

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the file is copied to a working area, that the original is never written to, that an overview is returned, and that a score_id is the handle for later calls. It stops short of stating permission requirements or error behavior for unsupported/corrupt files.

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?

Very compact: one sentence covers the action, formats, non-destructive copy, and return contents, and a second sentence covers the score_id handoff. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the two ideas could be split more cleanly for scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return, and it does: the overview fields and the score_id are enumerated. For a single-parameter entry-point tool this is nearly complete; only failure modes (bad path, unsupported format) are unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with its own description ('absolute path'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds value by enumerating the accepted file extensions (.mscz/.mscx/.musicxml/.mxl), which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb (open/copy a score file) plus the supported formats, and discloses that it returns an overview (title, parts, measures, pages, system layout). The clause '元のファイルには書き込まない' implicitly contrasts it with the mutating siblings such as score_save, so the agent can tell what this tool is and is not.

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?

Explicitly says subsequent operations use the returned score_id, which tells the agent this is the entry point before score_render/score_save/etc. It does not name an alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus score_compare), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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