get_midi_clip_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: it notes that Arrangement responses include timeline identity, and it specifies 'standard MIDI notes,' implying only basic note data is returned. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes a key detail about Arrangement responses. No unnecessary words, but it could be structured with bullet points for even clearer readability; still, it is appropriately sized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return shape. It states 'standard MIDI notes' but does not specify what fields are included (e.g., pitch, velocity, duration) or how timing is represented. The note about timeline identity for Arrangement is helpful, but for a tool without an output schema, more detail on the return structure would be expected for full completeness.

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%, so both parameters (clipId and trackId) are fully documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only emphasizes 'exact' clip. Since the schema carries the param information, a 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 specifies the verb ('Read'), the resource ('standard MIDI notes from one exact Session or Arrangement MIDI clip'), and distinguishes itself by noting the Session/Arrangement distinction and the timeline identity for Arrangement responses. This differentiates it from the sibling get_midi_clip_notes_extended, which likely returns extended note data.

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 a single clip via 'one exact ... MIDI clip' and notes the Session vs Arrangement distinction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for extended note properties). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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