piano_roll_read_patterns_autolocate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses side effects: it 'changes only the selected pattern', 'triggers ComposeWithLLM', records the reported channel, and can leave FL navigated to a target pattern/channel. It does not mention restore_start semantics or return behavior, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs side effects and navigation behavior into a short, well-organized set of paragraphs. Every sentence adds selection or invocation value with no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, side effects, and a concrete use case, but with no output schema and no annotations it also needed to clarify the return format and the meaning of restore_start and patterns_to_read. It is usable for high-level selection but not fully specified for invocation.

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%, and the description only explains navigate_after_pattern and navigate_after_channel ('FL is left on that pattern and optionally channel'). restore_start and patterns_to_read are never described, leaving half the parameters without any meaning beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Read notes across patterns') plus the method ('using FL's auto-located piano-roll channel'). It differentiates itself by noting it 'avoids explicit channel retargeting/openEventEditor', separating it from sibling piano-roll tools.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use this whenever you know ahead of time which pattern will be edited first', with a rationale about leaving the UI on the edit target. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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