capture_midi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures recently played MIDI notes and creates a new clip, but does not describe side effects, limitations (e.g., note count, transport state requirements), or whether it overwrites existing clips. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single sentence of 7 words, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word adds value. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool with no parameters and a clear purpose, the description is fairly complete. It indicates the feature's version dependence and the basic action. Some may desire more context about prerequisites or behavior, but the presence of an output schema (not shown) may cover return values. Hence slightly above adequate.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Following the baseline rule for 0 parameters (score 4), no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Capture'), identifies the resource ('recently played MIDI notes'), and states the outcome ('into a new clip'). It also specifies the Live version requirement, which helps clarify scope. This clearly differentiates from siblings like 'capture_and_insert_scene' or 'create_clip'.

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 context ('recently played MIDI notes') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'capture_and_insert_scene' or 'set_clip_notes'). No direct guidance on when not to use it.

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