diagnose_midi_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by stating 'Side effects: none' and documenting edge cases like audio clips returning WRONG_TYPE and omitting scale skipping pitch analysis. It still does not describe the returned diagnostic structure, but the key safety and behavior context is present.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses labeled lines for side effects, example, and edge cases. Every sentence adds useful information without 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and some edge cases but leaves return values and detailed parameter meaning undocumented. It is adequate but incomplete given the weak structured metadata.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does so through the example call and the note that omitting scale skips pitch analysis, but it does not explain what track_index and clip_index represent or what values scale_root and scale_type accept beyond the example.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Scan', names the exact resource, 'MIDI clip', and enumerates the diagnostics: overlapping notes, notes outside scale, and quantization issues. It also distinguishes itself from audio analysis by noting that audio clips return WRONG_TYPE.

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?

The example and edge cases imply when the tool is useful, but the description does not explicitly compare it to alternatives such as get_clip_notes, diagnose_clip_targets, or analyze_audio. Usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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