Moose Tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: links expire after roughly two hours, no re-render work is performed, and an optional hash verification exists. It stops short of describing the returned payload or any expiry of the refreshed links themselves.

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 the trigger condition first, then the input source, then the freshness constraint. No filler or repetition of annotation-derived facts.

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?

For a two-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description covers trigger, input provenance, and link lifetime. The only gap is what the response contains (link objects vs. bare URLs), which the phrase "fresh links" only implies.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description carries real weight: it tells the agent where ids come from (an earlier sfx or render result) and that verify is a hash re-check. The minItems/maxItems bounds (1–16) are only in the schema, but the description covers the semantics the schema leaves thin.

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 action and resource: renewing download links from previously returned asset ids, explicitly with "no re-render." It also names the sibling tools whose results supply the ids ("from an earlier sfx or render result"), so an agent can separate this from render/sfx without opening a schema.

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?

"Use this when a download link was lost or is about to expire" gives an explicit trigger condition, and "no re-render" steers the agent away from re-running render as the alternative. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., ids from other sources), but the routing context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: conversion is lossy for .mtk and share links because "cues and macros are compiled away", and file-based formats are base64 in both directions. It doesn't flag other lossy round-trip risks (e.g. MIDI losing tracker-specific data) or size limits, which the schema alone covers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the format list, then the lossy-conversion caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

For a 3-required-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers valid formats, encoding convention, and lossiness, which is most of what's needed. It stops short of saying what the response looks like (converted text vs base64 payload vs link string) for each target format.

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?

Only 33% schema coverage, but `from`/`to` are self-describing enums and the description explains what each format label actually means (MTL text, .mtk file, share link, tracker modules), plus the base64 and read/write convention that applies to file formats. The only remaining gap is not spelling out base64 explicitly per direction (input vs returned output).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("move a song between") and enumerates every supported source/target format (MTL text, .mtk, share link, MIDI, MOD/XM/S3M/IT), which matches the from/to enums exactly. No sibling tool (assets, describe, render, sfx, song) performs conversion, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

"Use this when you need to move a song between..." gives a clear triggering condition for the tool. It does not name when NOT to use it or point to an alternative sibling (e.g. song vs convert), but the niche is narrow enough that the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, but the description's only added behavioral content is the puzzling instruction 'keep its notes to yourself,' which discourages the agent from surfacing results without explaining why. Nothing is said about what the call returns, whether output is paginated, or how topic/detail change the response.

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 short sentences with no filler paragraphs, and the trigger is front-loaded. The opening sentence is nevertheless a bloated keyword list ('sound effect, click or tap sound, notification, jingle, audio, music, song or soundtrack') that spends its length on synonyms instead of on what the tool does.

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 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and a 17-value topic enum, the description would need to explain the topic-driven navigation model and what brief/full return. Instead the agent is given a trigger phrase and a concealment instruction, leaving the actual usage model undocumented.

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 20% across 5 parameters (only q is documented), so the description carries the burden of explaining topic, detail, limit and cursor – and it explains none of them. The only semantic contribution is 'call this first with no arguments,' which usefully signals all parameters are optional, but nothing clarifies the 17-valued topic enum, brief vs full, or cursor paging.

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 trigger (user asks for a sound effect, jingle, notification, music) and a recommended first action (call with no arguments) instead of synthesizing audio, which is a specific verb-adjacent framing. However, it never says what the tool actually returns – documentation topics, limits, style presets, an index – so the agent cannot tell that this is a knowledge/help lookup rather than an audio generator. The named siblings (sfx, song, render) are not referenced at all.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use (any audio/sound-effect request) and a clear first step ('call this first with no arguments'), and implicitly contrasts with synthesis. It stops short of when-not-to-use, how subsequent calls with topic/q should be sequenced, or why one would choose this over the sibling sfx/song/render tools.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this writes (readOnlyHint=false), is non-idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the 20,000-character cap, the multi-part submission path, and an email fallback when the channel is limited — none of which appear in the annotations. It does not say what confirmation or response the caller receives, so not a 5.

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 sentence with the trigger front-loaded before the mechanics, and no filler. The nested parenthetical about character limits and the email address makes it slightly dense, but every clause carries operational information.

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?

For a six-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers size limits, chunking, fallback contact and usage restraint. What remains unstated — whether feedback is anonymous or what the agent should report back after sending — is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 83%, so the schema already documents mtl, ref, part, parts, type and message. The description reinforces the message length and the 'longer in parts' mechanism, which helps explain the non-obvious ref/part/parts grouping, but adds no format or naming detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 core action is stated concretely: 'send the team a short note', plus the three triggering situations (something sounded wrong, tool confusing, feature missing). That is enough to separate it from the audio-oriented siblings (song, sfx, render, convert), though no sibling is named to confirm the boundary.

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?

Gives explicit positive triggers ('when something sounded wrong, a tool was confusing, or a feature is missing') and a restraint clause ('Quiet and occasional; never nag the user') that tells the agent how often to invoke it. It stops short of naming an alternative destination for non-feedback issues, so it falls just below the top band.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds real operational facts beyond them — output formats, 180 s cap, loop/cue/stem outputs, a 2-hour link expiry, and an acceptable-use URL. It stops short of explaining failure modes (e.g., what happens if the song check fails) or the exact return payload.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering condition and tightly packed with no filler sentences; the trailing agent-instruction ('Reply in 1-2 sentences plus the file') and link-expiry/AUP note are somewhat dense but each carries usable information. Slightly overloaded with parenthetical enumerations but still efficient.

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?

For a 13-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, format/duration constraints, output artifacts (files, links valid 2 h), and the mtl-vs-compose path. Gaps remain around minor flags (zip, genre, loudness, detail) and no explicit statement of the response shape beyond 'the file'.

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 77% and already documents len, format, style, loop, cues, stems, mtl, and compose in detail. The description only summarizes 'WAV, Ogg or Opus; up to 180 s, loops, cues, stems' at a headline level and says nothing about the undocumented params (zip, genre, loudness, detail, cue). Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries most of the semantic load.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (render a song to audio) plus the output formats and duration cap, and frames the user intent (music, song, jingle, soundtrack). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sfx (effects), song (composition/checking), and convert.

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?

Explicit about when to use ('when the user wants ... as audio') and how to route: send mtl or compose, and 'render checks the song itself, so skip song first' directly rules out a preceding song call. Alternatives (mtl vs compose) are named with a pointer to describe for generators.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable context: it reports design_mode, generated links expire after 2 hours, and provides an acceptable-use URL. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but these additions go beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case. The second sentence gives actionable recipe guidance. The third packs reporting and link expiry efficiently. Slightly dense but every sentence contributes; no 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?

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, enums, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage, recipe tailoring, and key behavioral facts (design_mode, link expiry). It references 'describe' for deeper details on recipes and instruments. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits specifics about revise, zip, or format parameters that are covered in the schema.

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 86%, so most parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds semantic guidance: recipes are starting points, and pitch, bright, dur, or seed should be tailored per interaction. It also clarifies the instrument+play pattern for custom instruments, providing meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose: generating UI or game sound effects (up to 16 per call) and auditioning custom instruments. It distinguishes from generic music generation ('song' sibling) by focusing on UI effects, but does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like 'song'. Clear but lacking explicit sibling differentiation.

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 opening sentence gives a clear 'when to use' context: 'when the user wants UI or game sound effects or to hear a custom instrument.' It also advises that recipes are starting points and to tailor parameters per interaction. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('play link plus quiet notes'), the cost model ('free score check: check:true'), and an agent-facing workflow rule ('Fix problems silently; tell only the user_summary'). The term 'quiet notes' and 'user_summary' are not defined anywhere, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, with no filler. The final fragment 'Free score check: check:true' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but every sentence carries information.

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 9 params, a nested compose object, and no output schema, the description still manages to state the return value (play link plus notes), the cost of the check mode, and the intended agent behavior on failure. Gaps remain around what 'quiet notes' contain and what a failing check looks like, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, including enums and the nested compose object, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description only adds a cost hint for check:true and the no-audio guarantee; it adds nothing about mtl vs compose selection beyond what the schema's describe(topic=...) pointers already say.

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?

States a specific action (check an MTL song or compose spec) with an explicit scope qualifier (no audio generated). It also distinguishes itself from the render sibling by noting render performs the same check. The generic tool name 'song' is rescued by the description rather than the other way around.

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?

'Use this when you want an MTL song or compose spec checked with no audio' gives a clear triggering condition, and '(not needed before render, which checks it too)' names the sibling and the case where this tool is redundant. No guidance is offered relative to describe, convert, or sfx, but the primary ambiguity is resolved.

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