realize_figured_bass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the tool returns a realized chord, but does not disclose whether it modifies the score, requires permissions, or handles errors. The lack of explicit side-effect or safety information reduces transparency.

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, using a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' format. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, the return value is sufficiently described. All three parameters are explained with examples. However, edge cases or error handling (e.g., invalid figures) are not mentioned, but the tool's complexity is moderate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by providing examples and clarifying each parameter: bass_pitch format, figures notation styles, and key context for accidentals. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Realize' and resource 'figured bass notation into chord pitches', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_chord' and 'generate_chord_progression' which serve different functions.

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 implies usage for figured bass realization but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_chord' or 'generate_chord_progression'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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