analyze_midi_clip_scale

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real value beyond them: the analysis is state-dependent (relative to the 'current Live key and scale'), returns computed per-note data (scale degrees, chromatic note IDs), and frames corrections as 'bounded' and non-mutating. The explicit 'Read-only' restatement is consistent with the annotations and reinforces the non-destructive contract.

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 totaling roughly 40 words, with action, scope, and context front-loaded. Outputs are listed compactly, and the non-destructive guarantee closes it. Every sentence earns its place; nothing repeats schema or annotation content.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly names the return shape (pitch names, scale degrees, chromatic note IDs, correction candidates), and the inputs are fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps: 'bounded' is undefined, and the source of the 'current Live key and scale' is not linked to a context tool like get_song_musical_context. Still, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly.

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 trackId and clipId are documented with concrete formats (e.g., 'track-N:clip-M from list_clips'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but it doesn't need to — the schema carries the full burden. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze one exact MIDI clip against the current Live key and scale.' It enumerates concrete outputs (per-note pitch names, scale degrees, chromatic note IDs, bounded correction candidates) that clearly distinguish it from siblings like analyze_midi_clip_chords (harmony) and correct_midi_clip_to_scale (mutation). The word 'exact' scopes it to a single clip, separating it from broader state/context tools.

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?

Clear context is established: this is a read-only analysis tool that depends on the current Live key and scale and returns preview correction candidates 'without editing notes.' This implies the preview-before-correct workflow with correct_midi_clip_to_scale and rules out use for actual editing. However, no sibling is named explicitly and no when-not-to-use condition is stated, so it falls just 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.