suggest_scale_for_mood

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the mapping from mood to scale and the return value (scale and MIDI pitches). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any error conditions. The description assumes a non-destructive planning step but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states when to use, then mapping and accepted moods, then return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage instruction.

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 an output schema present, the description still adds value by explaining the return value and providing a detailed mood-to-scale mapping. It covers all essential aspects for correct invocation: when, what inputs (mood, tonic), and expected output. Lacks only minor details like error handling or edge cases, but is sufficient for most contexts.

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 lists accepted moods (explaining mood), implies tonic_midi is the root note, and mentions octaves indirectly by saying 'returns list of MIDI pitches ready for add_layer,' but does not explicitly describe the 'octaves' parameter or its default behavior. Partial compensation but not thorough.

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 maps emotions/moods to musical scales and lists specific moods and scale mappings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'generate_scale' by explicitly saying to use it 'BEFORE composing any melody, harmony, or bass line' and noting it returns MIDI pitches ready for 'add_layer', making its purpose unique.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('BEFORE composing any melody, harmony, or bass line') and provides the accepted moods. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'generate_scale' or mention when not to use it, slightly reducing clarity on alternatives.

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