Diagnose TDAbleton Mapper

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by naming the exact parameters that can be repaired (Oscinputchop, Reorder, Bypass, Min/Max) and the condition that no AbletonMCP/live Ableton connection is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, repair capability, and external constraints. The reference to 'common mapper symptoms' is slightly vague, but it is sufficient for a diagnostic tool and does not mislead.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The mention of 'Oscinputchop, Reorder, Bypass, and Min/Max' refers to internal parameters of the mapper COMP, not the tool's own parameters, so it adds behavioral context rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Inspect', 'Reports', 'repair') and clearly identifies the resource ('TDAbleton mapper COMP and its source CHOP'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_tdableton or create_hand_ableton_mapper by focusing on diagnosis and optional repair.

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?

Provides clear context: it diagnoses mapper symptoms and can optionally repair without AbletonMCP or a live connection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks the explicit exclusions/alternatives that would warrant a 5.

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