song_to_midi

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

The description explains the two-track structure, alignment logic, and instrument selection, but does not disclose output behavior (e.g., whether it saves to file or returns MIDI data), side effects, or permissions. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. The alignment example adds clarity but could be seen as slightly verbose; overall it is efficient.

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?

With 18 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, a complete description should cover most parameters and return behavior. This description only covers a fraction of the parameters and omits output details, making it insufficient for a complex tool.

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 the description must compensate. It explains melody_notes, melody_rhythm, chords, beats_per_chord, and program numbers, but leaves 13 out of 18 parameters (e.g., step_beats, tempo, octaves, velocities, sustain, file_name) completely unexplained.

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 it writes a melody plus chord accompaniment into a two-track MIDI file, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'same rules as notes_to_midi' and 'same formats as chords_to_midi', indicating it combines both functionalities.

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 a clear context for use, including alignment guidance with an example ('a melody over 4 chords of 4 beats with 0.5-beat steps needs a 32-step rhythm/notes'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like using notes_to_midi and chords_to_midi separately.

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