midi_monitor

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 does convey a useful behavioral trait -- that this is a passive, display-only monitoring session lasting a bounded window rather than a persisting capture -- but it omits whether the call blocks for duration_seconds, what happens if the device is missing, and whether anything is written to disk.

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 core action in the first sentence, followed by a tight three-bullet list of use cases. Every element earns its place, though the bullets are slightly redundant with the stated purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and the two parameters are simple and fully schema-documented. What remains thin -- blocking behavior and device-missing failure mode -- is the main gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 (device_index, duration_seconds) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, valid-range, or default context beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: monitoring MIDI input and displaying incoming messages. This clearly separates it from siblings like record_midi_performance (which persists) and list_midi_devices (which enumerates). However, it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Useful for' bullets (testing connections, learning device output, debugging setups) give clear situational context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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