read_passage

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions compatibility limitations but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires a connection to a score app, or how errors are handled. Key behavioral context is missing.

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 structured as a brief paragraph followed by an Args list. It is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values, though it briefly mentions notes and rests. It covers parameter semantics and software compatibility, but lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., a live connection) or behavioral expectations, making it somewhat incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the index conventions (1-indexed for measures, 0-indexed for staff) and the default behavior for the staff parameter. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 reads musical content from a range of measures in the live score, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool by mentioning compatibility with different software, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_measure_content, which may have similar functionality.

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 usage guidance by noting that the tool works best with MuseScore, while Dorico and Sibelius return limited data. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., get_measure_content for single measures).

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