music_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. What the description does add is the snapshot provenance ('Read from the editor's music library on 2026-10-11') and the fixed catalog size, but it omits pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters.

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?

Front-loaded with what the catalog is, then filtering, then provenance — a sensible order. One clause ('the result shows the call') is vague filler, but overall there is little waste.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and gives the category taxonomy, which is essential for building a valid filter. The main gap is pagination semantics for limit/offset on a 188-record catalog.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the two meaningful filters: query is 'words of the title' and category is one of four values (探索音乐 calm, 战斗音乐 tense, 任务音乐 story, 其他需求 events) that appear nowhere in the schema. limit and offset are left undocumented, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Identifies the resource precisely as the platform's background music library, including its size (188 pieces) and record fields (id, title, length, category). It is distinguishable from sound_catalog by the 'background music' framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Explains how the returned pieces are consumed downstream (setting day/night/last-wave music via f.modifyPlayerBackgroundMusic), which implies the lookup context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance, and never mentions sound_catalog or scene_search_assets as the paths for non-music audio.

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