check_instrument_range

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Check if a pitch is playable' and mentions return status, but does not state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or any other behavioral traits such as required permissions or performance considerations.

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 extremely concise, using only two brief lines plus structured 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence is necessary, and no extraneous detail is included.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return value, which is sufficient for a simple query tool. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important given the presence of many sibling tools. An output schema exists but its content is unknown; still, the description could be more comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by providing example values and clarifying expected formats (e.g., 'C4', 'G3'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's plain titles and types.

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 verb-resource relationship: 'Check if a pitch is playable on an instrument.' It includes examples of valid instrument names and pitches, making the purpose unambiguous. Compared to sibling tools like 'check_playability', this tool's specific focus on instrument range is evident.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_playability' or 'transpose_for_instrument'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool over others.

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