get_midi_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive filtering options' which hints at functionality, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., event list format, pagination), error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether it's read-only (though 'Get' implies safe read operation). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters and complex filtering.

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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key filter types to enhance clarity without adding bulk.

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 (6 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of events with properties), error handling for invalid filters, or how parameters interact (e.g., fileId vs. filePath). For a data retrieval tool with rich filtering, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'comprehensive filtering options,' which aligns with parameters like eventTypeFilter and timeRange, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples that aren't already in the parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Get MIDI events from a file with comprehensive filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('MIDI events'), and scope ('from a file'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_midi_summary or get_track_details, which likely provide different types of MIDI data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_midi_summary (which might provide aggregated data) or get_track_details (which might focus on track-level information), leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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