piano_roll_read_notes

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

The description adds genuinely useful runtime details: bridge prerequisite, next_offset pagination, and the selected_only empty-page edge case. However, it claims the tool reads 'without changing notes or enabling musical writes' while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which indicates the operation is not read-only. This is a direct annotation contradiction and forces a score of 1.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences cover purpose, prerequisite, and pagination caveat without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers setup, pagination, and a tricky selected_only edge case, while the output schema and input schema cover return and parameter details. The only real completeness issue is the unresolved contradiction between the description's read-only claim and readOnlyHint=false, which leaves the tool's behavior ambiguous.

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 six parameters. The description adds non-obvious behavioral semantics around next_offset and selected_only — specifically the possibility of an empty page with a non-null next_offset — which goes beyond the 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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Open a score and read notes' and explicitly excludes musical writes, distinguishing it from piano_roll_write_notes and piano_roll_transform. The title 'Inspect existing Piano Roll notes' reinforces this read-only intent.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it is the tool to use for reading notes without musical writes, requires the one-time piano_roll_bridge setup, and explains pagination via next_offset. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the read-only framing makes selection unambiguous.

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