theory_chord_progression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates read-only behavior through 'Look up' and 'Returns', and clearly describes the no-args case ('lists all 24 named progressions'). It doesn't mention error handling or empty results, but the core side-effect-free nature is evident.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the primary action, and conveys all essential information without any redundancy or filler.

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 simple lookup nature, the description covers the main behavior and the no-argument case. It doesn't specify the exact format of 'tags' or 'examples', but this is minor and the tool is otherwise self-explanatory.

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 schema descriptions for both parameters are clear and self-contained ('Filter by tag', 'Progression name'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter insight, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Look up'), a specific resource ('named chord progression'), and the exact scope ('Without args, lists all 24 named progressions'). It is immediately distinguishable from generation tools like progression_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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies a lookup/retrieval use case, but doesn't name sibling tools or conditions for choosing this over progression_generate or theory_scale.

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