arp_pattern

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

There are no annotations to supplement the description. The description states it 'returns notes' but does not disclose whether the operation is purely computational, whether it writes to the DAW, or whether there is any randomness or determinism. Side effects and state changes are not mentioned.

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, with no redundant words or unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes either the core purpose or a parameter clarification, making it easy to scan.

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 does not explain the output format beyond 'returns notes', nor does it cover error handling, parameter interdependencies, or integration with the host project. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves several important gaps for an agent invoking 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?

The description explains some parameters (direction, rate, octaves) and gives their enum values, but it omits several others from the schema, such as chord_pitches, length_beats, start_beats, velocity_base, and accent_downbeats. The schema itself lacks descriptions, so the tool description is the only source, and it is incomplete.

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 function: 'Generate an arpeggio over a chord' and specifies what it returns ('notes for the given length'). This is a specific, actionable verb-object pair that distinguishes it from other generation tools like melody_generate or bassline_generate.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions, use cases, or limitations. It only explains what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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