MusicAtlas

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that, notably that MusicAtlas may automatically begin processing an unanalyzed recording and that pending analysis requires roughly a minute before retrying. It also discloses output-style constraints, though it does not cover permissions or rate limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the pending-analysis guidance is useful, but several style instructions are repetitive (e.g., 'in your own natural language' and 'Write naturally, as a knowledgeable music enthusiast would describe a recording'). The description could be tightened without losing essential guidance.

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 appropriately explains the expected natural-language output style and how to handle the unanalyzed-recording case. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter description tool, with only minor gaps around return structure for pending-analysis cases.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (track title and artist name). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or disambiguation beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 description clearly states the verb and resource: describe a released recording's musical characteristics (sound, style, rhythm, instrumentation, energy, character). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like find_similar_tracks and render_track_results, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 clear usage context: draw on MusicAtlas analysis plus broader musical knowledge, avoid referencing the analysis, provide technical measurements only when explicitly requested, and handle pending analysis by explaining the wait and suggesting a retry. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: that arbitrary natural-language concepts should be passed as tags and that the tool also resolves playlists via artist or track. Return volume, ranking, and result limits are still undisclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage triggers, then the artist/track case. No filler and nothing 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?

A read-only discovery tool with four optional params and no output schema; the description covers intent, triggers, and how to shape input. It omits what happens when several params are combined and whether results are ranked or limited, which an agent would need to interpret output confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by prescribing the interpretation rule — map the user's meaningful musical concept into `tags` rather than paraphrasing it — which is real semantic guidance the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Find MusicAtlas playlists') and scopes it to a user's musical intent. The resource is clearly distinct from the track/artist-oriented siblings (describe_track, find_similar_artists, find_similar_tracks), so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Strong trigger enumeration: 'use this whenever a user asks for playlists based on a mood, theme, genre, activity, vibe, geography, artist, or track', with concrete NL examples ('playlists about love', 'workout playlists', 'sad indie'). No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (ranked matches, MusicAtlas URLs, supporting track examples), which is not in any structured field.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage. The opening triple of near-synonyms ('similar, sonically related, or musically adjacent') is slightly redundant but not costly.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return shape adequately. It omits any mention of result limits or ranking behavior, but nothing critical for invocation 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it; the description adds only the notion of a 'reference artist,' which is already conveyed by the schema description.

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 (find) and resource (artists) with a clear scope modifier ('similar, sonically related, or musically adjacent to a specific artist'). It implicitly separates itself from find_similar_tracks by resource, but never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use when a user asks for artists like or similar to a named artist.' However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not mention find_similar_tracks as the adjacent alternative for track-level queries.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the non-read-only side effect: if a recording is missing, the service 'may automatically begin analyzing it.' It also discloses the async workflow — analysis pending, widget monitors progress, results appear automatically — and explicitly forbids polling, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and which openWorldHint/readOnlyHint cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries operational information (side effects, async behavior, no polling). The opening verb triple ('sound similar to, resemble, or are sonically related to') is slightly redundant but plausibly aids intent matching.

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 the description compensates by explaining how results are delivered (interactive widget) and what happens in the edge case of an unanalyzed recording. An agent can call this correctly and knows not to retry, with no material gaps.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that the track/artist identify a 'released recording' subject to canonical resolution; it offers no extra syntax or disambiguation guidance for ambiguous artist/track strings.

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: find tracks that sound similar to a given released recording. The resource (tracks) cleanly separates it from the sibling find_similar_artists, and the phrase 'similarity-based track recommendations' pins down the output intent.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering user intent ('asks for songs like a particular track') and adds a clear negative instruction: 'Do not call the tool again to check progress.' It does not name sibling alternatives such as find_similar_artists or describe_track, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the tool is state-dependent on previously retrieved results, performs no search, and is intended for a separate rendering step in a client pipeline. It says nothing about what the rendering produces, but the output schema exists to carry that.

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 purpose, then inputs, then the routing constraint. The sentence restating the accepted inputs is low-value since the schema carries it, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

Purpose, usage and the no-search constraint are well covered, and return values are handled by the output schema. The gap is the fully undescribed nested schema: for a rendering tool whose inputs are file paths and platform ID maps, the agent gets no guidance on what those fields should contain.

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% and the nested track objects use opaque fields (map_path, audio_path, artist_path, platform_ids) that are never explained. The description does name the three parameters and marks hashtags optional, which partially compensates, but it adds no meaning about required nested fields or path semantics.

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: displays previously retrieved similar-track results in an interactive audio player. It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_similar_tracks by declaring it does not perform a new search, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('Does not perform a new search') plus the condition that selects this tool ('clients that use a separate rendering step') and names the alternative sibling ('find_similar_tracks also supports direct rendering'). This is a complete routing rule.

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