send_midi_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It never states whether the call blocks for duration_ms, what happens with an invalid device_index, or whether notes are queued or immediate, despite it being a side-effecting call to external hardware.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. However, one sentence is under-specified for a five-parameter, externally-effectful tool with no annotations, so it reads as thin rather than properly sized.

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, but with zero annotations and no sibling differentiation the definition omits key operational context: how to source device_index, timing/blocking behavior, and error conditions. An agent can guess correctly but has little support.

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 clear per-parameter docs including ranges, defaults, and the middle C reference, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline of 3 under full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Send a MIDI note') and identifies the target ('an output device'), so the agent knows the effect. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as play_midi_file or list_midi_devices, so it stops 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how device_index is obtained (list_midi_devices), and no contrast with play_midi_file for sequences. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the name.

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