garageband_midi_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. For a tool that inspects a file, read-only behavior is implied but not stated.

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?

Single sentence of 15 words, directly stating the action and what is reported. No filler or 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lists reported items but omits output format (e.g., JSON), whether it errors on invalid files, or how to interpret results. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully indicates that the 'path' parameter should point to a MIDI file, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. It does not specify path format or resolution, but the core semantic is clarified.

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 the tool's purpose: inspect a MIDI file and report specific attributes (format, track names, channels, note counts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like garageband_image_to_midi or garageband_tab_to_midi, which create MIDI rather than inspect.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after generating a MIDI file), or when an alternative like garageband_list_tracks would be more appropriate.

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