melody_generate

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

The description explains the output format and rhythmic characteristics (quarter, eighth, dotted notes with rests, humanized), but it does not mention side effects, whether it modifies existing data, or whether it is a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, this partial transparency is moderate.

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 bullet-like clarity for enums and output notes. Every sentence adds useful detail without redundancy, 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?

For a generation tool with no output schema, the description provides a fairly complete picture: input parameters (scale, contour, density) and output format (pitch, start_beats, length_beats, velocity). It lacks detail on some parameters but overall is sufficient for typical 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?

The description elaborates on the contour and density enums and the note output structure, but it does not clarify the meaning of root, mode, length_beats, seed, or register_octave. The schema provides brief descriptions for root, mode, and register_octave, but overall coverage is partial, leaving seed and length_beats ambiguous.

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: generating a melody from a scale and contour, producing notes ready for a MIDI clip. It distinguishes itself from other composition tools by focusing specifically on melody generation, though it does not explicitly name competing tools.

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 like arp_pattern, bassline_generate, or other generative composition tools. No explicit conditions or recommendations are given.

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