constrain_to_key

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

The description only states the core function without disclosing behavioral traits beyond the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true'. It does not confirm that the tool does not modify state, nor does it mention return values, side effects, or required permissions. The annotation provides some transparency, but the description adds minimal value.

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 very short (one sentence) and lacks necessary details about parameters, usage, and behavior. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is not front-loaded effectively, as it misses critical information that would fit in the same length.

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 the complexity of music theory and the lack of parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format of 'notes', valid 'key' strings, or 'mode' options. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged, and the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning no descriptions for any of the three parameters. The description does not explain what each parameter represents (e.g., that 'notes' are MIDI note numbers, or valid values for 'key' and 'mode'). This leaves the agent with only the schema types, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Snap' and the resource 'proposed note set', and specifies the action 'to the nearest in-key pitches before writing'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_scale_notes' (which returns scale notes) and 'transpose_notes' (which shifts pitches). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring a key or mode, and does not mention any exclusions. The phrase 'before writing' hints at a sequential use but is insufficient.

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