get_key_signature

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

The description details the return format and ordering, and the read-only nature is implied by 'Return all key signature changes.' No side effects are mentioned, but the absence of annotations puts the burden on description, which adequately covers expected behavior.

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 very concise with a single-line summary followed by a structured docstring for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and output format. It could mention if the score is modified (it is not), but overall it is complete enough.

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 descriptions are missing (0% coverage), but the description's docstring explains both parameters: 'score_b64: Base64-encoded score file' and 'input_suffix: Input extension, e.g. mscz.' This adds clear semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states 'Return all key signature changes in the score with their measure positions,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like change_key_signature or transpose_by_key by focusing on retrieval of existing key signatures.

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 usage when key signature information is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_harmony or transpose_by_key. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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