analyze_midi_feel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds scope transparency beyond that: it discloses the groove limitation and that the measurement is over stored note data, not playback. It stops short of describing return shape or handling of empty clips.

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, front-loaded with the measurement action, then the constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 carries more burden, and it adequately conveys what is analyzed, at what resolution, and the known limitation. An agent could still want clarity on result shape or empty/degenerate clip behavior, but nothing prevents a correct invocation.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by spelling out the three grid slots (straight16, eighthTriplet, sixteenthTriplet) and the one-to-eight-bar cycle, giving semantic context the enum alone lacks. trackId/clipId remain undocumented in the description.

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 and resource: 'Measure stored MIDI note timing offsets and velocity accents' against named grid slots over a bounded bar range. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling analyzers like analyze_midi_clip_scale and analyze_midi_clip_chords, which address pitch content rather than timing/velocity feel.

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?

Gives a real boundary condition: it reports an assigned native groove but 'cannot measure its playback effect or extract a Live Groove Pool pattern.' That implies when-not-to-use, but no alternative tool is named (e.g. a groove-pool extraction tool), so routing still requires inference.

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