SUMMARU Breath

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: payload shape (audio URL + inhale/hold/exhale timeline), ~5 minute duration, voice and singing-bowl cues, and a documented fallback to exact phase timing when no recording exists for a language. It omits auth requirements, error cases, and whether the URL is time-limited, which keeps it below 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 dense sentence front-loads the return value, then the fallback, then a short imperative. Every clause earns its place, though the sentence is long enough that the fallback condition is easy to miss on a skim.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value and does: audio URL, cue composition, approximate duration, timeline contents, and the no-recording fallback. Combined with a fully documented 6-parameter schema, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the enum lists and per-parameter descriptions already do the work, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only one marginally useful signal — that recording availability depends on the requested language, tying loosely to the lang and length params — and says nothing about pattern, voice, music, or binaural.

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 and resource ('Get a ready-to-play guided breathing session') and enumerates what comes back: an audio URL plus a phase timeline. It implicitly separates itself from the list_* siblings by being the retrieval step, but never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent gathers that this is the 'fetch the actual session' call after picking a pattern/language, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_breath_patterns for discovering valid pattern ids. The single imperative 'Show the attribution' is a post-call instruction, not selection guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the response shape (stream URL, suggested volume, player link), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the resource is read-only, whether ids are stable, or any auth/rate constraints.

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 that front-loads the action and then the payload; every clause adds information with no filler.

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 one-parameter, enum-constrained tool with no output schema, the description covers the input domain, the returned fields, and the intended consumer (a player link for the user). Nothing needed to invoke 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 0% — the enum lists 13 bare values with no explanation. The description compensates by categorizing them into "music id like slow-harbor" versus "binaural band delta/theta/alpha/beta," which an agent could not derive from the schema alone.

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 and resource ("Get one looping sound by id") and even enumerates the return payload: stream URL, suggested volume, player link. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — "one" and "by id" contrast with list_sounds, but no sibling is named.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_sounds (discovery first) or get_breath_session. The agent must infer that ids come from list_sounds before this tool can be used.

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?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that results include phase timings and available language voice guides, and 'List' implies a read-only enumeration. It omits ordering, whether all patterns are returned, and any pagination behavior, which matters for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the returned-value detail arrives immediately. The garbled token 'SUMMARU' is a small clarity defect but does not derail comprehension.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand in for both; it names the key returned fields, which helps. It still leaves the shape of the result (list length, per-item fields, ordering) and read-only safety implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly signals no filtering input is needed because none exists.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List ... paced-breathing patterns') plus the specific content returned (phase timing in seconds, voice-guide languages). It is distinguishable from the sound-related siblings, though the typo 'SUMMARU' and the absence of any mention of get_breath_session leave the boundary slightly fuzzy.

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?

Listing a catalog is self-evidently a discovery operation and the sibling get_breath_session implies the alternative (fetching one session), but the description never states when to use this versus that tool. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the returned fields (stream URL and player link) and a real behavioral obligation (attribution must be shown). It says nothing about auth needs, result volume, or whether streams are rate-limited or expiring, which matters for a media tool.

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, front-loaded with the content inventory and ending with the actionable attribution instruction. The typo "SUMMARU" costs a little clarity but nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description must describe returns and does so briefly (stream URL, player link, plus attribution). It is adequate for a simple one-optional-param list tool but leaves the shape of the response items and its relationship to get_sound unexplained.

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 100% and the single kind parameter has an enum with a description, so the baseline applies. The description adds value by mapping the two enum values to concrete content (music categories vs binaural bands), which the schema does not spell out.

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?

Specific verb (List) and resource (SUMMARU looping music tracks, binaural beat bands), and it enumerates the categories so an agent knows what content families come back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_sound, leaving the list-vs-fetch boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: enumerate tracks/bands, presumably to pick one for get_sound. The one explicit directive is "Show the attribution," which is a display requirement rather than guidance on when to choose this over get_sound.

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