gigstamp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what happens on an unknown slug or unsupported city (error vs empty result), whether any auth is needed, or what a returned gig contains. The one behavioral fact conveyed — that the city must be a supported one — is already enforced by the schema enum.

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 zero filler, and the verb and scope are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract but leaves the failure mode (invalid slug or unsupported city) and the shape of the returned gig unspecified. Adequate, with visible gaps that a slightly longer description would close.

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%: both params have descriptions and the city param enumerates all 23 supported values. The description's wording ("by its slug," "within a supported city") simply restates that, adding no new meaning such as slug format, case sensitivity, or whether slugs are city-scoped or global.

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 gig") plus the scoping constraint ("by its slug within a supported city"), which is enough to distinguish a single-item fetch from the sibling search_gigs_and_events. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit 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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this only when a slug is already known, or to fall back to search_gigs_and_events when it isn't. The only hint of usage is the phrase "one gig," which an agent must infer means a direct lookup rather than a search.

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 discloses the coverage constraint ('only these cities return data') and the shape of the returned data, including that districts are only present for big cities. It doesn't discuss caching or whether the list is exhaustive/stale, a minor gap for a zero-param read.

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, zero filler, and the critical 'Call this first' directive is front-loaded after the purpose statement. Every clause (coverage, URLs, big-city districts) earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does (cities, listing URLs, districts for big cities). Combined with the usage directive, an agent has everything needed to call a zero-param tool 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description can or needs to add parameter meaning.

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 ('List the cities gigstamp currently covers') plus the payload shape (listing URLs, named districts). It also names the sibling search_gigs_and_events, so an agent can distinguish it from the other listing tools.

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?

'Call this first: only these cities return data' gives an explicit ordering rule and the reason for it, which is rare and useful. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or full alternatives, so a 4 rather than 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a read-style enumeration and that each venue carries a scale of grassroots or major. It does not say whether all venues are returned, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what happens for an empty city.

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 action and scope, then the return characteristics. Nothing redundant.

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 listing with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential contract, including the shape of returned items. Pagination/ordering behavior is the only notable gap.

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 sole parameter is a documented enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'a supported city' merely reinforces the constraint without adding format or selection guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('the venues gigstamp tracks') plus a scoping constraint ('in a supported city'), and it explicitly names the shape of the returned data (grassroots|major scale). An agent can distinguish this from list_cities and search_gigs_and_events on the resource alone.

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: a city is required and only supported cities are allowed. But the description never says when to prefer this over search_gigs_and_events or list_cities, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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 must carry the load, and it delivers real behavioral context: results come back most-imminent-first, each row carries a booking link (and the tool does not sell tickets) and a gig-page URL to cite. It omits pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit parameter and any failure modes, which keeps it short of 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then return shape, then filters — a sensible order. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy in places ('the local grassroots scene is front and centre, but coverage aims to be complete'), but essentially every sentence adds 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 12-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, and where the data stops (only supported cities). It leaves gaps on result limits/truncation and error handling, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 92%, so the schema already explains every parameter including defaults and date formats. The description restates the filter set (date range, venue, district, category, scale, free text) and adds only marginal detail, notably that district slugs are city-specific and should be checked via list_cities.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search a supported city's upcoming live music and events') and enumerates the content types covered plus the grassroots-to-major scope. It is clearly distinguishable from get_gig (single lookup), list_cities and list_venues, which it defers to for reference data.

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 states the precondition that only supported cities return data and points to list_cities, and lists the available filter axes so an agent knows what narrowing is possible. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_gig, but the split is implied by the plural search framing.

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