import_midi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals that timing imports exactly, General MIDI programs map to preset families, mapping guesses are returned, and the score can be re-voiced. However, it does not cover side effects, required permissions, or error behaviors.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with key use case and behavior details. No extraneous information is present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (MIDI import with mapping) and lack of output schema, the description covers essential aspects: timing fidelity, mapping approach, and response contents. It could be more complete by describing the output RON structure explicitly, but it is sufficient for typical usage.

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%, with all three parameters documented inline. The description adds limited extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., sample rate default), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool converts Standard MIDI Files (format 0 or 1) into cochlea RON scores, specifying the verb 'convert' and the resources (MIDI file to RON score). It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_midi by highlighting the import direction and the mapping process.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this to bring existing musical material into the compose→render→probe loop,' providing when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the sibling context, which is acceptable given the tool's unique role.

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