capture_midi

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 what the tool does but does not disclose side effects, return values, or whether it creates a clip or buffers the MIDI. Since it is a simple action with no params, the minimal risk is partially mitigated, but key behavioral details are missing.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core information and adds a familiar analogy ('like Ableton's Capture feature'). Every word earns its place; there is zero waste.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is short but omits important context such as what happens after capture (e.g., does it create a clip, return notes, or influence the current selection?). Sibling tools for clip creation and note editing suggest this could have side effects, but the description does not clarify. A bit more detail would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). Per the guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add parameter details because none exist, so no deduction is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('MIDI') with a clear scope ('recently played'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip or generate_drum_pattern by referencing Ableton's Capture feature. This makes the purpose immediately understandable and 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user has recently played MIDI and wants to capture it, similar to Ableton's Capture. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'recently played' qualifier sets it apart from other MIDI tools. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, but context is clear.

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