get_scale

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description usefully discloses the scope of computed output (triads/7ths, Roman numerals, functions, shared modes), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error handling or invalid-key behavior. Credit is warranted because annotations cover the safety profile.

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 sentence that front-loads the core subject ('A key or mode explained') and then enumerates the returned content. It is somewhat dense/run-on but each clause maps to a distinct piece of output, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and only one clearly documented parameter, the description does the heavy lifting on return values by enumerating notes, intervals, chords per degree, and related modes. That is fairly complete for a read-only lookup, though it omits any note on invalid input or output format.

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% and the parameter description already gives format examples ('D dorian', 'F# major'). The description's phrase 'a key or mode' corroborates that both keys and modes are accepted, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description states the resource (a key or mode) and enumerates exactly what the tool produces: correct note spellings, intervals, chords per degree, and related modes. It is clearly a reference/lookup tool, though the verb is implicit ('explained') and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_scales or identify_chord.

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 indication of when to reach for this tool versus list_scales, analyze_harmony, or identify_chord. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing statements — the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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