plan_midi_ratchet_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as what the plan returns or whether it modifies the clip. It is not contradictory, but it does not enrich the agent's understanding 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?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action and scope. There is zero redundancy; every word carries meaning. It is appropriately sized for a planning tool with a well-documented schema.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does not clarify what a 'plan' returns, which could be important for an agent. However, the parameters are fully specified and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose but lacks details about the expected output or any preconditions, leaving some gaps in 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 all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; terms like 'straight or triplet' and 'complete ordered onsets' map to existing schema descriptions (e.g., repeatCounts=3 creates triplet). With high schema coverage, the description adds marginal value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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'), a precise resource ('explicit straight or triplet MIDI repeats'), and a key scope ('across complete ordered onsets'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_midi_ratchet_pattern by indicating a planning phase versus an application phase, and from plan_midi_gate_pattern by focusing on repeats rather than gates. No tautology.

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 this is a planning operation, contrasting with the apply_* siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus applying the pattern directly or versus other plan_midi_* tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling list.

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