suggest_next_chord

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 inputs (previous chords, key, style) and outputs (list of suggested chords with explanations), but does not disclose behavioral traits like randomness, ranking criteria, or limitations. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 as a docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is clear and front-loaded, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, and the format aids readability.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: explains all inputs and the output format (list of suggested chords with explanations). It does not cover error cases but is mostly complete for effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter with examples: 'previous_chords: List of previous chord Roman numerals (e.g., ["I", "IV"])', 'key: Current key (e.g., "C major")', and 'style: Style of suggestions (classical, pop, jazz).' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 possible next chords based on harmonic context.' It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('next chords'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'suggest_cadence' (which suggests cadences) or 'generate_chord_progression' (which generates full progressions).

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 (when to suggest a chord given previous chords) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'suggest_cadence' or 'analyze_chord.' 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.