match_chords

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that octaves are ignored, inversion notation is used, and partial matches include missing_notes. But it does not describe return format, performance, or potential edge cases.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by explanations of the two modes. It is not overly verbose, though could be slightly tightened.

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 and low parameter coverage, the description should be more complete. It lacks details on the note input format and the return value structure (what exact information is returned for each chord). The 'limit' parameter is unmentioned.

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 compensate. It explains the meaning of 'include_partial' through the mode descriptions, but does not specify the note format (e.g., 'C', 'C#') nor explain the 'limit' parameter at all. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 finds chords matching given notes, with exact and partial modes explained. It distinguishes from siblings like get_chord (gets a specific chord by name) and list_chords (lists all chords) by focusing on matching input 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use exact vs partial matches, explaining behavior for inversions and missing notes. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like match_scales or other sibling tools.

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