record_midi_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is captured (notes, control changes, pitch bend) and that capture is time-bounded, which the schema only implies. However, it omits key behavioral traits for an I/O-bound capture tool: whether the call blocks for the whole duration, what happens on an invalid device index, and whether an existing output_file is overwritten.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope detail (what events, which device, how long) following immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, capture scope, and timing adequately. The remaining gap is operational behavior (blocking, error/overwrite semantics) rather than anything an agent needs to choose the 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 the schema fully documents output_file, device_index, and duration_seconds including the 5-300 range and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (record a MIDI performance from an input device) and the second sentence clarifies scope (all MIDI events from the specified device for the given duration). It is distinguishable from list_midi_devices and play_midi_file, though it never explicitly contrasts with the nearby midi_monitor tool, which an agent might reasonably confuse with recording.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as midi_monitor or list_midi_devices. The only device-selection hint lives in the schema field description, not the tool description, so the agent gets no contextual guidance from the text itself.

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