midi_get_note_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is read-only and non-destructive (implied by 'get'), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, caching, or error behavior. Since it's a simple mapping, this is minimally sufficient.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes a helpful example. It is front-loaded and has no superfluous 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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a trivial function, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and use it. It could optionally specify the output structure (e.g., a dictionary), but this is not critical.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 returns a MIDI note number to name mapping with a concrete example (C4=60). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'MIDI note number to name mapping', distinguishing it from sibling tools that manipulate MIDI events.

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 for converting note numbers to names when working with MIDI data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like midi_get_notes. For such a simple lookup, the purpose is clear enough, but lacking any context or exclusion criteria.

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