theory_diatonic_chords

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 discloses that it returns Roman numerals and MIDI pitches, which is helpful, but it does not describe the exact output structure (array vs. object), ordering, or whether pitches are voicings or single notes. It also omits any constraints on root format or octave behavior.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose and the key flag are stated upfront. It is concise and front-loaded, though a bulleted parameter breakdown could improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully specify the return format. It states the content (Roman numerals + MIDI pitches) but not the data structure, leaving the agent to guess whether it's an array, object, or something else. It also doesn't cover octave handling or edge cases like invalid root names. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 must compensate for all 4 parameters. It explicitly explains 'sevenths' and implies 'mode' via 'key/mode', but it does not explain the 'root' format (e.g., 'C' vs 'C#') or the 'octave' parameter at all. This is a significant gap for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('7 diatonic chords') and clarifies the distinction between triads and 7th chords. It does not explicitly name sibling tools but is clearly differentiated from theory_borrowed_chords and theory_chord_progression by its focus on diatonic chords of a single key/mode.

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 when to set the sevenths flag but does not contrast with alternatives like theory_borrowed_chords or theory_chord_progression. Usage context is implied (when you need the diatonic chords for a key) but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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