Arcalune Music

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses return values (YouTube URL, track page, download URL) and related tracks, which is useful. But it does not mention potential failure modes, authorization, or whether the operation is purely read-only, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Get one track by id', then adds related tracks and return specifics. No filler or redundant phrasing; it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

While the description mentions key return elements (URLs, related tracks), it does not outline the full response structure, such as whether the result is a flat object or includes nested related tracks. Without an output schema, this gap could leave agents uncertain about the exact data shape, though the tool is simple.

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 schema covers both parameters (id and locale) with 100% description coverage. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, merely saying 'Get one track by id' and not elaborating on locale usage or id format.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves one track by ID and also fetches related tracks from the same catalog. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (search_tracks and list_tags) by focusing on a single track fetch with supplementary data, using a clear verb and resource.

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 the tool is for fetching a specific track, and the schema parameter id references 'as returned by search_tracks', which connects it to the search flow. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, though the siblings are evident from context.

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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the output shape (grouped tags with track counts) and that the list is exhaustive. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.

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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that packs in the action, the output, grouping categories, and count information. There is no filler or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a sufficiently complete contract: every tag, the grouping dimensions, and per-tag counts. It omits only explicit return-format details, which are not critical at this complexity level.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter descriptions are necessary, and the schema already confirms the absence of inputs.

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 a specific action ('List every tag') and resource, adding scope with the categories and counts. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by tying the output to search_tracks usage.

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 context: it lists exactly the tags that can be passed to search_tracks, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use case is evident.

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