list_instruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes inputs and outputs but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, permissions required, error handling, or performance implications. The 'Return instrument/part info' suggests a read operation, but without explicit mention of side effects or limitations, transparency is low.

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 concise, structured into Args and Returns sections, and each sentence is necessary. No redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage in a few lines.

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 has two parameters and the description includes both input semantics and output structure (list of dicts with fields), it is reasonably complete. The output schema is indicated as present but not shown; the description compensates by listing return fields. Minor gap: no examples or error handling notes.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It explains score_b64 as 'Base64-encoded score file' and input_suffix as 'Input extension, e.g. "mscz"', providing semantic meaning beyond the raw parameter names. This adds significant value for correct parameter usage.

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 it returns instrument/part info including transposition and pitch range. It uses specific verbs ('Return') and resource ('instrument/part info'), and the tool name 'list_instruments' aligns well. Among siblings (e.g., analyze_harmony, get_key_signature), this is uniquely about extracting instrument details from a score.

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 lists required arguments but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_score_info. No direct guidance on prerequisites or when to avoid. The context of siblings implies distinct purpose, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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