get_arrangement_clip_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It discloses the return of probability and velocity_deviation where available, and reveals a significant quirk: looped clips return only one copy of notes, not the repeated playback length. It also advises comparing loop_start/loop_end to start_time/end_time, providing behavioral context beyond a simple read.

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 structured with clear paragraphs, first stating the core purpose, then usage context, return details, and a looped-clip caveat. Every sentence earns its place and provides non-obvious information. The parameter list is concise and front-loaded.

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, the description explains important return details (probability, velocity_deviation, has_probability) and the looped-clip behavior that could confuse users. It is complete for a read tool with no annotation support, addressing the key complexities of the tool.

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 compensate. It provides brief definitions for both parameters. The track_index definition is tautological, but clip_index gains valuable meaning by specifying it comes from get_arrangement_clips, which helps the agent source the correct index. This is more than the schema offers, though not extremely detailed.

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 opens with 'Read the MIDI notes of a clip on a track's Arrangement timeline,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further distinguishes itself from get_clip_notes, which targets Session clip slots, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this for Arrangement clips, with the clip_index reported by get_arrangement_clips.' It also clarifies when NOT to use it (get_clip_notes is for Session slots) and explains the limitation of get_clip_notes. This fully covers when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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