piano_roll_read_notes

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

Discloses behavior beyond the annotations: opening the score changes FL's focus, it never mutates notes or enables writes, and it requires a prior setup step. It also warns that a selected_only page can be empty yet still carry a next_offset, which is non-obvious and valuable. This reconciles the readOnlyHint=false annotation (the focus change is the side effect).

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers side effects, prerequisites, and paging guidance in short sentences. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers the side effects, prerequisite, and pagination behavior an agent needs to invoke this correctly, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining how offset/next_offset paging works and the corner case where selected_only returns an empty page with a valid next_offset.

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 verb (Read) plus the precise resource and scope: notes of one channel in one pattern, and enumerates the fields returned (pitch, timing, expression). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings piano_roll_write_notes and piano_roll_transform_notes.

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 a concrete usage context (read before composing around or transforming existing material) and states the prerequisite (piano_roll_setup must be done once). It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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