identify_chord

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation covers the safety profile, so the description is free to add value elsewhere — and it does, disclosing that results are ranked ('most likely first'), that inversions and slash bass are handled, and that Roman numeral/function analysis only appears when a key is supplied. With no output schema, this output-shape disclosure is meaningful, though ambiguity/error behavior for non-chordal input is unstated.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and nests the optional key behavior as a qualifier. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both inputs' roles and the shape of the result (ranked chord names, inversion/slash bass, optional Roman numeral). Minor gaps remain around ambiguous or unrecognized note sets, but nothing essential to invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented (key accepts scale/mode strings, notes accept names or MIDI numbers with the lowest as bass). The description only restates that a key triggers Roman numeral output, adding little 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?

Specific verb 'Names' paired with the resource 'chord', plus the scope of what gets returned (inversion/slash bass, ranked candidates, Roman numeral and function with a key). This clearly separates it from analytical siblings like analyze_harmony or analyze_progression, but the description never names an alternative, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 implies usage through the conditional 'with a key, its Roman numeral and function', telling the agent the key parameter is optional and what it unlocks. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over analyze_harmony, get_scale, or analyze_progression, and no stated prerequisites for the notes input.

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