get_midi_notes

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the important distinction between visible and invisible notes, the default filtering, and playback implications. It also clarifies the dual item identification schema. Return format is not mentioned but is covered by output schema.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it repeats the invisible-notes concept twice and the item_id type explanation twice. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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?

For a read-oriented tool with an output schema, the description covers the key context: purpose, default behavior, item identification, and parameter effects. It lacks potential error scenarios or explicit when-to-use guidance, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining track_index, item_id (including the dual integer/string types), and include_invisible with its default and effect. Concrete examples for item_id formats are provided, adding complete meaning 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 retrieves all MIDI notes from a MIDI item, using the specific verb 'get' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_midi_notes_by_pitch by focusing on full note retrieval, and the visible/invisible note detail adds clear scope.

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?

It provides clear context on how to use the tool, including the two item identification methods and the include_invisible flag, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as find_midi_notes_by_pitch. The context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it, but exclusions are not stated.

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