list_midi_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it scans the system (implying a read-only operation) and describes the return shape, but says nothing about permissions, latency of the scan, or edge cases like no devices found. Reasonable but shallow behavioral disclosure for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by scannable device categories and return info. Every section serves a purpose, and the structure lets an agent grasp it immediately.

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 an output schema exists, the return description is more than enough, and the device-category enumeration adds helpful context. For a zero-param discovery tool with no annotations, the definition is complete; only the lack of usage routing to sibling tools keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing to disambiguate, and the description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 and resource ('List all available MIDI input and output devices') and enumerates the device categories it scans (USB keyboards, hardware synths, virtual ports, DAW interfaces). This clearly separates it from action siblings like send_midi_note or midi_monitor, though it never names a 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?

The description implies its usage (device discovery/enumeration before connecting or routing) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. An agent must infer that this should be called before send_midi_note, midi_to_reaper, etc.

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