plan_midi_chord_arpeggiation

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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping arpeggiation to 'complete chord onsets' and noting seeded randomness, but it does not disclose the output format or what a 'plan' returns.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core purpose and mode options without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's straightforward planning role.

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 seven required parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the plan output looks like, whether it feeds into apply_midi_chord_arpeggiation, or what to do with the result. The rich schema mitigates but does not resolve this gap.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level framing around chord onsets and deterministic/random modes but does not provide meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') with a specific resource ('arpeggiation of complete chord onsets') and enumerates the supported traversal modes. It clearly distinguishes this planning tool from the sibling apply_midi_chord_arpeggiation by framing it as a planning operation rather than an application operation.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling set: this is a 'plan' counterpart to 'apply_midi_chord_arpeggiation'. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the apply variant, nor does it mention any alternative tools or conditions.

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