live12_song_capture_midi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the core capture behavior but does not disclose important side effects, such as where the captured MIDI is stored, whether it creates or modifies a clip, what preconditions apply, or whether the action can overwrite existing material.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and the key differentiator efficiently.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the action and the no-recording-pass behavior. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about where the captured MIDI goes and what state is affected, leaving a noticeable gap before an agent can invoke it confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce confusing or contradictory parameter information.

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: captures recently performed MIDI input in Ableton Live 12. It implicitly distinguishes itself from transport recording by saying no explicit recording pass is required, though it does not name a sibling tool directly.

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 phrase 'without requiring an explicit recording pass' implies the main use case: recovering MIDI that was played but not recorded. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as transport_record.

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