midi_get_notes

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the capping behavior (max_results default and ceiling) and hints at the need to check count. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or return format, but for a read-only tool the disclosure is moderate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then parameter details with no unnecessary words. It follows a clear front-loaded structure.

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 description lacks details about the output structure (no output schema). It covers the essential behavioral aspect of capping but omits what a note object looks like (e.g., pitch, velocity, position). Given the tool's simplicity, it's passable but not fully complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning: for max_results it gives default (500) and hard ceiling (10000), and recommends midi_count_events. For item_index, it repeats 'MIDI item index' from schema. This adds value beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 purpose: 'Get notes in a MIDI item (capped at max_results to limit context size).' It specifies the resource (MIDI item notes) and the action (get), and naturally distinguishes from siblings like midi_insert_note or midi_count_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 advises using midi_count_events first if unsure about total count, which provides context for when to use this tool versus another. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives for filtering or other note operations.

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