Midi Ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by explaining what the names mean (keyboards/pads/virtual inputs vs synths/DAW outputs) and the Windows loopMIDI dual-role case, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the list is live/refreshed, or error behavior when no ports exist.

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 core definition is front-loaded and the inputs/outputs split is easy to scan. The trailing loopMIDI sentence is useful platform context but is long and breaks the otherwise tight structure, keeping it off a 5.

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?

No parameters and an output schema already present, so the description need not explain return values, and it nonetheless characterizes the two port categories. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document or omit.

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 resource (MIDI ports on this computer, by name) and enumerates its two categories, inputs and outputs, with concrete examples of each. The verb 'list' is only implicit ('the ports this computer has now'), which keeps it from a 5, but an agent can still tell this is a port-enumeration tool distinct from midi_read or midi_write.

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?

It routes the agent concretely: inputs feed live_midi, outputs are targets for live_midi_out, live_midi_clock, and midi_play. That is clear context for how the result is consumed, though it never says explicitly 'call this first to discover ports' or when not to call it.

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