get_midi_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description never confirms it, and the schema's dry_run and fx_* parameters suggest mutation capability, muddying the picture rather than clarifying it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple listing operation. It is arguably too terse given the nine-parameter schema, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is not sufficient. An agent cannot tell whether the parameters affect the result, whether the call is safe, or what form the returned device list takes.

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 only 56%, and the description mentions none of the nine parameters. Worse, most parameters (track, fx_guid, fx_scope, target_track_guid) appear unrelated to listing MIDI inputs, and the description does nothing to explain how or whether they apply.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list MIDI input device names and indices. An agent immediately knows what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling configure_midi_input, leaving the listing-vs-configuring boundary to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as configure_midi_input, nor any prerequisite context (e.g., whether REAPER must be running or a project open). The one sentence implies a discovery use case but states nothing explicitly.

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