analyze_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Dump'), but does not explicitly state that no changes are made. It also lacks details on performance, error handling, or the format of the output.

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 and well-structured. The main purpose is stated in the first line, followed by usage context, then a clear list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool dumps MIDI data but does not specify the output format or structure. With no output schema, the description should give more detail on what the returned data looks like (e.g., JSON structure). It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex data retrieval 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving parameters unexplained. The description compensates with an 'Args' section that explains each parameter clearly: tracks accepts a JSON array or 'all', start_time is in seconds with default 0, end_time with default -1 meaning project end. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Dump current MIDI data: per-track notes, CCs, timing stats.' This clearly states the verb (Dump), the resource (current MIDI data), and the specific content (notes, CCs, timing stats). It distinguishes itself from siblings like midi_get_notes by offering a broad overview rather than specific note retrieval.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this to inspect what's in the project before editing, or to verify what you just inserted.' It explains the context for using the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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