clyphx_midi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions only that it sends a MIDI message, omitting side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data), authorization needs (e.g., requires ClyphX Pro running), or constraints like rate limits. This lack of context could lead to misuse.

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 very concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted text.

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 explains what the tool does and its parameters, but lacks broader context such as where the MIDI message is sent (e.g., selected track, virtual port) or whether additional setup is needed. Despite having an output schema (not shown), the absence of context on the tool's effect in the system makes it moderately complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: channel range (1-16), msg_type values ('NOTE' or 'CC'), data1 as note/CC number, and data2 as velocity/value with default 0. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema types and names.

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 sends a MIDI message via ClyphX Pro, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clyphx_global or clyphx_scene by focusing on raw MIDI output, a unique functionality among the many ClyphX tools listed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With nearly 100 sibling tools covering various functions, the description does not indicate scenarios (e.g., when you need to send arbitrary MIDI vs. using clyphx_action) or state prerequisites, making it hard for an AI to select this tool appropriately.

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