ReaMCP

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and successfully discloses return format (list with start_ppq, end_ppq, pitch, velocity, channel) and scope limitation (active take only). Missing details on failure modes (invalid indices, non-MIDI item).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines operation, second defines return structure. Front-loaded with action verb. No redundant text.

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?

Good coverage given output schema exists; description proactively lists return fields which aids agent interpretation. With only 2 simple indices and a clear read operation, nearly complete except for error handling documentation.

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% (titles only). Description partially compensates by referencing 'media item' (clarifying item_index) but never mentions track_index or explains the track+item coordinate system. Baseline 3 acceptable but could document parameter relationship.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' with clear resource 'MIDI notes from a media item's active MIDI take'. Scope is well-defined (ALL notes from the ACTIVE take) and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like set_midi_notes (write) and delete_midi_note (delete).

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?

Implies usage scenario (retrieving existing MIDI data) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., verifying item exists, has MIDI take) or when to prefer this over get_track_items. No mention of error conditions when indices are invalid.

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