cassette_match_bgm

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 mentions 'optionally register' implying a side effect, but does not disclose behavioral details such as required permissions, state changes, or what happens on match. The agent lacks crucial behavioral context.

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 sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it is under-specified, omitting necessary details; it is not a model of clarity. It earns its place but does not fully inform.

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?

Despite the tool having 7 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, the description fails to cover return values or parameter usage. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool effectively, especially for fallback and optimization options.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., session_id, instruction, search_queries, fallback fields). The agent cannot understand how to use these parameters, severely impairing correct invocation.

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 matches and optionally registers a Free To Use background-music asset for a session, specifying the resource type and action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cassette_match_exact_bgm or jamendo_music_matcher, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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