get_scale

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the behavior for each input combination (no root, root, root with octave), the return format, and that the output feeds into other tools. No side effects mentioned, which is appropriate. Lacks details on error handling or limits, but overall transparent for a read-only computation tool.

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 for overall purpose, then clear bullet-like explanations for each mode, and a final note on output usage. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values for all input variants. It also mentions how the output integrates with other tools, which is helpful context. No missing information for this 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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that scale_type is a scale name (e.g., major), root is optional and affects output: without root returns intervals, with root returns notes, and with octave returns pitches with MIDI numbers. This fully clarifies parameter behavior 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Describe a scale type; with a root note, generate its notes.' It distinguishes two modes (without root gives intervals, with root gives notes, with octave gives concrete pitches), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_scales or match_scales.

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 guidance on when to use each mode: without root for intervals, with root for notes, with octave for concrete pitches. It also mentions integration with other tools. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare to alternatives like get_chord, but for a scale-focused tool this is sufficient.

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