theory_velocity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does state the conversion behavior and the dual mode (single dynamic vs. all). However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as invalid input handling, the exact velocity range, or the implications of the ACCENT_BUMP and GHOST_NOTE_MAX_VEL constants.

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 long and contains no redundant information. It packs the core behavior, accepted inputs, and supplemental constants into a compact, easily parseable structure.

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 is adequate for a simple conversion/lookup tool, but it omits output details such as the returned velocity values, return format, or how the constants are exposed. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent has to infer some behavior from the tool name and description.

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 covers the single dynamic parameter, and the description reinforces it by listing the accepted values. It does not explicitly state that the parameter is optional or describe the result when omitted, but the 'or look up all of them' phrasing reasonably implies that behavior.

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 action: converting dynamic markings to MIDI velocity values, with an additional lookup-all mode. It also identifies the exact input domain (ppp/pp/p/mp/mf/f/ff/fff) and mentions the included constants, leaving no ambiguity about 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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as ensemble_dynamics or theory_dynamics-related tools. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool should be preferred.

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