suggest_instrumentation

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., read-only or mutating), required permissions, or any constraints like requiring an existing score. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic operation.

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, consisting of two lines of purpose and three lines of parameter examples. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor inefficiency: the 'Args:' block could be integrated, but overall it is well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema (from context signals), the description need not explain return values in detail. However, it omits contextual information such as whether the tool modifies the score or suggests based on an existing context, leaving gaps for a new user.

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 value by listing acceptable values for each parameter (e.g., style examples). This exceeds what the schema provides, but it does not specify exact formats or constraints beyond the examples.

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's purpose: 'Suggest instrumental ensembles based on style and requirements.' It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('instrumental ensembles'), and distinguishes well from siblings like 'add_instrument' or 'generate_chord_progression'.

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. For example, it does not clarify whether it is a read-only suggestion or if it should be used before adding instruments individually. Sibling tools like 'add_instrument' exist, but no comparison is made.

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