analyze_midi_clip_chords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces with 'without editing notes'. It adds valuable context: results are deterministic and include specific output elements (candidates, inversions, Roman-numeral function, ambiguity, chromatic pitch classes). 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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists return types and explicitly states read-only behavior. Every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned data (chord candidates, inversions, etc.). It also clarifies the read-only nature and the dependency on current key/scale. Missing details like how to obtain clip IDs are covered by sibling tools and not necessary here.

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 100% – both clipId and trackId are fully described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying 'one exact MIDI clip' refers to clipId. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('MIDI clip chord events'), with precise qualifiers: 'sustained-note-aware', 'one exact MIDI clip', and 'against the current Live key and scale'. This differentiates it from siblings like analyze_midi_clip_scale and get_midi_clip_notes, so an agent knows exactly what it does.

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 implies usage for chord analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_midi_clip_scale or get_midi_clip_notes. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so an agent must infer from the name and description.

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