electron.dance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It openly states the tool is public and accessible to anyone, and lists the contained link types. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but for a read-only public links getter, this is acceptable transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It includes the domain, the scope, and a concrete list of examples without any repetition or extraneous words.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers what the tool does, who can use it, and what links are included. It is complete for its intended simplicity.

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, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 tool retrieves electron.dance's public community/social links and enumerates specific types (WhatsApp, Instagram, SoundCloud, etc.). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on tracks and gigs.

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 notes 'Open to anyone' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like get_top_tracks or list_upcoming_gigs. The usage context is implied by the listed content, but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that a bearer token is required, which is important. However, it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or return format, leaving some gaps for a complete behavioral picture.

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, directly states the action and key constraint, and has no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the core functionality, the scope, and the authentication requirement. It could optionally detail the output structure, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this acceptable.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details that don't exist, and the auth requirement is the only relevant semantic information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource 'electron.dance's current Spotify top tracks (short term)', distinguishing it from siblings which cover site links, gigs, and RSVPs. The scope and time range further clarify its functionality.

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 implied by the clear purpose and sibling distinctions, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide exclusions. It only notes the bearer token requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a contextual guideline.

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 discloses key behaviors: results are sorted soonest-first, and each gig includes going/maybe attendance. It also states it's open to anyone, implying no auth required. However, it stops short of detailing pagination or error cases, which is a minor gap.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage and sorting behavior, making it highly concise 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, sort order, included fields, and access. No output schema exists, but the description explains what the list contains, making it complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 one parameter (limit) is fully described in the schema as 'Max number of gigs to return'. The description doesn't add extra information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'upcoming electron.dance gigs', and mentions attendance data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rsvp_to_gig or get_top_tracks.

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 explicitly instructs to use for 'what's on tonight/this week/this weekend' questions and suggests filtering first entries for tonight. It also says 'instead of scraping the website', providing an alternative, and 'Open to anyone' as an access note.

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 full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the action is performed on behalf of a default user (not the caller), and a bearer token is required. This goes beyond a generic mutation description, though it omits error behavior or idempotency details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical for statuses. Every word adds value: the action, the allowed values, the clear behavior, the default-user context, and the auth requirement. No fluff.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, auth requirement, acting on behalf of a default user, and the status semantics. It does not mention return values, but that is not necessary without an output 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 coverage is 50%: gigId is well-described in the schema, but status is only an enum with no description. The description adds critical semantics by explaining 'none to clear it' and implying going/maybe are setting states. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 action: 'Set attendance status for a gig' with specific valid values (going, maybe, none). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_upcoming_gigs, get_site_links, get_top_tracks) which are all read-only operations.

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 by noting it acts 'on behalf of the site's configured default user' and requires a bearer token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all read-only, making the RSVP use case implicit.

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