check_tuning

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden, and it does: it discloses that the tool renders the track (non-trivial offline work), what it measures, and the accuracy caveats for chords and polyphony. It does not mention cost/latency or failure modes on empty or silent tracks, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the question it answers, then organized by input type with a closing caveat sentence. At roughly 85 words it is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the parenthetical asides are the only mild padding.

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 output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does describe the metrics (cents off, semitone distance, count outside key/chords). With 100% parameter coverage and a read-only annotation, only the absence of explicit cost/performance expectations leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that 'key' and 'chords_item' are the reference used to count out-of-key pitches, which the schema labels but does not functionally tie together. This clarifies why those optional params change the result rather than just what they are.

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?

Opens with a specific question tied to a concrete action ('Renders the track and measures what actually sounds'), then splits the behavior by input type (MIDI part vs audio). An agent can immediately tell this is a pitch-accuracy measurement tool and not a generic analyzer like analyze_audio or measure_tracks.

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 gives clear applicability context: MIDI parts measure each held note's pitch, audio measures distance to nearest semitone and count outside key/chords, and it notes 'Mono lines measure best; chords are judged by their top note.' That is real when-it-works guidance, but it never names a sibling alternative or states an explicit exclusion, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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