get_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior: results are sorted by time, filters are combined (ANDed), and start/end is a half-open interval [start, end) over note start times. It omits the limit/pagination behavior despite a limit parameter defaulting to 200.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then filters, then the downstream-tool routing and an example. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the field enumeration is long and the 'Optional filters (combined)' line reads slightly run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the field list is essential and present; time formats and filter semantics are covered. Gaps remain for limit-based pagination and the slot/arrangement_clip addressing needed to actually target a clip.

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%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains pitches, pitch_min/pitch_max (numbers or names), start/end, and note_ids, and gives the "bar.beat.sixteenth" vs clip-beats format with a worked example. It leaves limit, slot, and arrangement_clip unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Notes of a MIDI clip') and enumerates exactly what a note record contains (note_id, pitch, start, duration, velocity, etc.) plus the sort order. An agent can distinguish this read tool from write_notes/edit_notes/delete_notes without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the returned ids to edit_notes, delete_notes or transform_notes, and gives a concrete call example. It does not state when to prefer this over get_clip or how it relates to arrangement clips, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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