theory_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The phrasing 'Return the notes' unambiguously indicates a pure query with no side effects, and the tool's read-only nature is implicitly and adequately conveyed.

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—two sentences—and front-loads the primary action and output. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the mode list is the only added detail, which is necessary.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states the nature of the output (MIDI numbers, note names, interval pattern). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool will return and how to use it correctly.

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?

Although the schema only describes 'root' and 'octave', the tool description fully covers 'mode' by listing all valid values. Combined, all three parameters are effectively documented, and the description adds critical 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 main action ('Return the notes of a scale starting at a root') and explicitly lists what the tool returns (MIDI numbers, note names, interval pattern). This fully specifies the tool's purpose.

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 provides an explicit enumeration of valid values for the 'mode' parameter, which is essential usage guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling composition tools, but the self-contained nature and mode list make the intended use clear.

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