live12_clip_get_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates a read operation and lists returned note fields, but it does not cover edge cases such as empty windows, missing clips, or whether the clip must be MIDI.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that identifies the operation, scope, and returned fields with no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 four-parameter read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete because it names the returned fields and underlying Live API method. It would be stronger if it mentioned that the clip must be a MIDI clip or what happens when the time window contains no notes.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general notion of a 'specified time window' and does not elaborate on start_time, time_span, track_index, or slot_index beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: retrieving MIDI notes from a clip within a time window. It is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like add_notes, modify_notes, and remove_notes by its retrieval verb, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope boundaries.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as live12_clip_add_notes or live12_clip_modify_notes. Prerequisites like the clip being a MIDI clip are also not mentioned.

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