find_midi_notes_by_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It communicates that the search is non-local ('across the project'), but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the pitch range is inclusive, how results are ordered, or any performance implications. As a read-only find operation, the risk is low, but the description adds no extra disclosure beyond the stated scope.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and an existing output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It captures the essential purpose and project-wide scope, but it lacks usage guidance and parameter bound details that would make it fully self-contained. Given the simplicity, this is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'pitch range' but does not explain that pitch_min and pitch_max correspond to the lower and upper bounds, nor does it convey the valid MIDI pitch range (0-127) or that the parameters default to 0 and 127. The parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description adds little meaningful information.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('MIDI notes'), and a defining scope ('within a specific pitch range across the project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_midi_notes, which likely operate on a single MIDI item rather than project-wide by pitch.

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 for searching notes by pitch across the whole project, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_midi_notes, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough to infer when it applies, but not stated as a guideline.

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