Astra: now playing

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: the live event stream backing, the cheapness of calling, and the ability to pass the returned ref to astra_set_favorite or astra_playlist. This enriches understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: what is returned, why it is cheap, and how the result can be used downstream. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 state getter with an output schema and annotations, the description is contextually complete. It specifies the return contents and integration potential, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select or invoke the 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?

With zero parameters, the description is not required to elaborate on parameter meaning. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description does add value by enumerating what the returned state includes, which compensates for the absence of parameter 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('current playback state of the Astra music player') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like astra_control or astra_play by focusing on read-only state observation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever current playback state is needed. It adds practical usage context ('Served from a live event stream when connected, so it is cheap to call') and explains how the returned ref connects to other tools, though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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