plan_midi_gate_pattern

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it mentions the grid and onset ordering but does not describe what the plan output looks like or how it is intended to be used. It does not contradict annotations, and given the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler and each phrase ('explicit repeating gate ratios', 'complete ordered MIDI onsets', 'straight or triplet beat grid') adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain that this tool produces a plan to be applied later (e.g., via apply_midi_gate_pattern), nor does it clarify the exact meaning of 'complete' onsets beyond what the schema states. The schema covers parameter details well, so the description need not repeat them, but the workflow connection and expected output are missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'ordered' onsets and 'straight or triplet beat grid', which clarifies the relationship between noteIds and gridBeats/gateRatios beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. This helps an agent understand that gateRatios apply in a repeating, ordered sequence across all onsets.

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 the action ('Plan'), the resource ('explicit repeating gate ratios'), and the scope ('across complete ordered MIDI onsets on a straight or triplet beat grid'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'apply_midi_gate_pattern' and other 'plan_midi_*' tools by specifying the exact pattern type (gate ratios) and the constraint on onsets.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_midi_ratchet_pattern or plan_midi_probability_pattern. It does not mention that this tool is a planning step before applying, nor does it state any exclusions. The 'Plan' verb implies a workflow but without stating it, an agent may not know to pair it with apply_midi_gate_pattern.

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