suggest_chord_progression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the output format. No mention of side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 sentence, concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential details, making it less helpful despite brevity.

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 tool has 3 parameters, an output schema (unshown), and no schema descriptions, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the output format (Roman numerals, MIDI) or genre types, leaving significant gaps.

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 description does not explain individual parameters (key, mode, genre). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails to clarify parameter semantics, defaults, or acceptable values.

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 indicates the tool generates chord progressions based on genre and key, outputting Roman numerals and MIDI data. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_harmony (analyzes existing) and constrain_to_key (constrains), but could be more explicit about the generative nature.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_midi_notes or analyze_harmony. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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