music_theory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that chord_progression writes into the current session (side effect) and explains the output format for scale queries. However, it does not detail the chord progression output format or any error conditions.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value, including an example and sibling tool references.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and a moderate complexity domain, the description is fairly complete. It covers both query types, inputs, side effects, and alternatives. Missing the exact output format for chord_progression prevents a 5.

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% but description adds value: it explains that root also serves as key for chord_progression, gives an example usage, and illustrates the scale output format. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 is for music-theory queries, detailing two query types (scale and chord_progression) with specific outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools (generate_part, generate_rhythm) by explicitly stating their use cases.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'For pattern generation (drums/bass/melody) use generate_part; for rhythmic patterns use generate_rhythm.' It also includes a concrete example.

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