plan_midi_probability_pattern

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 the scope constraint 'complete ordered MIDI onsets' but does not disclose what the tool returns or whether it performs any side effects beyond the read-only hint. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, with no redundant words. It earns its place efficiently.

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 planning tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value or output format, but given the 'plan' verb and the read-only annotation, an agent can reasonably infer it produces a plan object. Minor gap, but overall adequate.

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 100%, with all four parameters described. The description's mention of 'explicit repeating playback probabilities' and 'complete ordered MIDI onsets' loosely maps to the probabilities and noteIds parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('plan') and a clear resource ('explicit repeating playback probabilities across complete ordered MIDI onsets'). It distinguishes from the sibling apply_midi_probability_pattern by using 'plan' rather than 'apply', making the intent clear. However, it could be more explicit about what 'plan' entails versus other planning 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_midi_probability_pattern or other plan_* tools. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a selection condition. The distinction is only implied by the verb 'plan'.

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