read_markings

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior: every row reports whether its content is readable, and a dynamic group lists its parts in order with per-part positions and hairpin length/end. It does not state read-only guarantees explicitly, nor anything about volume, cost, or ordering of returned rows.

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?

It is dense and information-rich with little filler, but it opens with a long parenthetical catalog of marking types instead of a leading statement of what the tool returns. The dynamic-group explanation and the 'sub'/set_property note are useful but buried at the end.

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 five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should define the range parameters and return shape. It covers the content categories and part structure well, but leaves the entire parameter surface and row ordering unexplained, which is the gap most likely to cause a mis-call.

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 coverage is 0% and none of the five parameters (flow, from_bar, from_pos, to_bar, to_pos) is documented anywhere. The repeated phrase 'in a range' only weakly implies that from_bar/to_bar/from_pos/to_pos bound the query; it never explains the position string format, whether the range is inclusive, how flow interacts, or what the defaults mean.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool retrieves in a range: dynamics, slurs, clefs, ottavas, text, tempo, holds, rehearsal marks, repeats, breaks, playing techniques, ornaments, and time/key signatures. Combined with the name 'read_markings' the verb+resource is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as read_music or read_context_at, which an agent must guess between.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many sibling read/add tools. The only cross-tool hint is the trailing note that 'sub' identifies a hairpin part for set_property, which is a workflow hint rather than selection guidance.

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