Summarize a .fms project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by specifying the output contents (pattern order, note dumps, tick totals, duration), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core output, and the second gives a concise usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and three undocumented parameters, and the description does not explain the listing format, the effect of maxPatternsPerChannel, or how project vs projectPath are used. For a summarizer with potentially complex output, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the three parameters (project, projectPath, maxPatternsPerChannel). It does not mention any of them, leaving their meaning and effect entirely undocumented. This is a critical gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a readable listing of a project'), and details the content: every song with pattern order, per-pattern note dumps, tick totals, and rendered duration. It also frames the purpose ('review what a .fms actually contains'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_fms (likely raw dump) and validate_fms (validation).

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to review what a .fms actually contains.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It lacks exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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