export_midi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds a behavioral insight (parsing specific functions), but does not disclose whether the tool overwrites files, requires an active session, or has other side effects. Acceptable for a non-destructive export operation, but gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds a key detail. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 and 4 parameters, the description should explain the return value (e.g., what base64 returns) and any side effects. It fails to describe what the tool returns or how to interpret the output. Given the tool's simplicity, more context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions parsing functions, which is not parameter-related. Therefore, no additional value.

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 action ('Export current pattern') and the resource ('to MIDI file'), and adds a specific detail about parsing note(), n(), and chord() functions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which include many generate/analyze operations but no other explicit MIDI export.

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 the tool should be used when you have a pattern to export, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_pattern or save) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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