send_midi_note

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes parameters and return type but does not mention safety, idempotency, or potential side effects (e.g., if MIDI port is unavailable). This is insufficient for an AI agent to assess risks.

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 extremely concise: a brief summary, use case, clear parameter documentation in a structured format, and return type. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. Parameter descriptions are thorough. The tool's purpose and usage context are well explained, though it could mention whether the operation is blocking or if prerequisites exist.

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 0%, but the description adds detailed meaning: note range 0-127, velocity default 127, channel defaults to Setup MSC channel, off defaults to false. It explains each parameter's behavior 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 clearly states 'Send a MIDI note message via the console's MIDI Out port', providing a specific verb and resource. It also explains the use case for triggering external devices, distinguishing it from siblings like send_midi_control and send_midi_program.

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 mentions it is 'Used to trigger external devices (video servers, audio, pyro, fog)', giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative MIDI tools among siblings.

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