get_notes

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description still adds substantial behavior: the default 2000 cap, the `truncated` overflow signal, deterministic sort order (start_time then pitch), and the id's stability contract tied to edit_notes. It also documents the extra return values (clip length and loop), which the annotations do not.

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?

Effectively a single dense paragraph covering fields, sorting, truncation, and all filter modes; front-loaded with the purpose and address. It is long and reads as a run-on, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does: every note field with types/ranges, sort order, the clip length and loop, and the truncation signal. Combined with annotations carrying the safety profile, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: note field ranges (velocity 1-127, probability 0-1, velocity_deviation -127..127, release_velocity 0-127), the semantics of 'notes that start in the range', and the limit default. It does not restate every filter parameter, but what it adds is substantive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the MIDI notes of a clip') plus the exact address format and a scoping constraint ('MIDI clips only'). The verb 'Read' cleanly separates it from write_notes, edit_notes, transform_notes and generate_notes in the sibling list.

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?

Explains when to use each filter mode (range, ids, selected:true) and cross-references edit_notes for the returned note ids, giving clear operating context. It stops short of stating when not to use the tool or drawing an explicit contrast with siblings like get_properties.

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