import_midi

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: file source constraints, drum track handling (s() lanes for non-collision), pitched track output (note().s('piano') and chord merging), and reference to future phases. This compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 efficient, front-loading the main purpose, then detailing source options, behavior, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given the parameter count, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers input formats, behavior for drum and pitched tracks, and future phases. It does not fully specify the output structure of the pattern, but the example implies a pattern object.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters and descriptions, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains the default for steps_per_cycle, the drum_map override behavior, and that unmapped drums result in rests surfaced in the summary.

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 converts a .mid file into a playable Strudel pattern, with specific mention of Phase 1 literal transcription. It distinguishes from the sibling tool export_midi by explicitly noting the reverse direction.

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 explains when to use source='base64' vs source='path', mentions path traversal blocking, and provides an example. It also indicates the reverse direction via analyze tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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