get_midi_cc

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read. The description adds useful context about what the return contains (event kinds with QN positions), but says nothing about the limit/maximum-result behavior despite a 'limit' parameter, nor about pagination.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and wastes no words. Slightly dense with parenthetical examples, but efficient overall.

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?

For a 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level. However, the interaction of start/end/limit/cc/channel filters and result ordering is left entirely to the schema, leaving some gaps for an agent assembling a correct call.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema (cc, kind, start, end, channel, item_id). The description's event-kind list loosely correlates with the 'kind' and 'cc' filters but adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('reads') and resource ('MIDI item's controller events'), then enumerates the exact event kinds (CCs, pitch bend, program changes, aftertouch) with QN positions. This clearly separates it from the sibling get_midi_notes, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('read a MIDI item's controller events'), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_midi_notes, nor any exclusion guidance. An agent can infer the context but must reason it out from the sibling list.

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