als_extract_midi

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that extraction is from saved files, per clip, and that no Live installation is required. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint: true). However, it omits potential edge cases like file version compatibility or multiple clips.

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 concise sentences with critical information front-loaded: the core function in sentence one, a key parameter detail in sentence two. No extraneous words.

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 output schema exists, description covers return format and prerequisite (track_index from als_summary). Minor gaps: no mention of file size limits or encryption state, but adequate for a simple extraction tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains track_index as 'the track's position in the set (see als_summary)', adding context. However, path is left without description beyond its type, missing explanation of expected format (e.g., full file path).

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 (extract MIDI notes), the source (track in a saved .als file), and the output format (dictionaries per clip). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_clip_notes' (which requires Live) by noting 'No Live required' and by targeting offline .als files.

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 usage context through the reference to 'see als_summary' for track_index, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_clip_notes for live sessions). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given.

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