get_clip_notes

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 the return fields (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute) and hints at extended fields, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention potential failure conditions like invalid indices or missing clips. The description is reasonably transparent but leaves room for behavioral gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and lists parameters in a structured list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is easy to scan, though the parameter list could be seen as slightly redundant given the schema already lists them.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the key context: the tool reads from a Session-view clip, lists the fields, and clarifies parameter roles. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for a read tool with a clear purpose, this is largely sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: each parameter is given a meaningful explanation (track_index: Track that owns the clip, clip_index: Session clip slot index, user_prompt: telemetry). This adds value beyond the raw schema, though it lacks specific ranges or examples.

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 action ('Read all MIDI notes from a Session-view clip') with a clear resource (MIDI notes in a clip) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info or get_session_info. It also lists the returned fields, which solidifies the 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer that it is for reading clip notes based solely on the purpose, with no explicit direction.

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