tidal_list_samples

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. It usefully discloses that unrecognized names are silently ignored ('any other name is silent'), which is real behavioral value beyond structured fields, but it says nothing about the return shape, ordering, or whether the call has any side effects.

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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Slightly more terse than necessary but everything present 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (names usable with s/sound) and when to use it. Only the absence of return-format or refresh-cost detail keeps it from a 5.

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 both the 'filter' and 'refresh' parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., substring vs. exact match, cost of refresh), so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (sample banks and synths installed in SuperDirt), plus the scope qualifier 'SuperDirt has installed'. It is clearly separable from the sibling tools, which are all about tempo, layers, hush, or evaluation rather than sample discovery.

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 concrete usage context: 'Use these names with s or sound' and 'Check here before using a sample you aren't sure exists', which tells the agent exactly when to call it. It does not name a competing tool or state exclusions, so it falls 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.