jamendo_music_matcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that a result may be 'registered', implying a potential side effect, but it does not explain what registration means, whether files are downloaded (despite download defaulting to true), or what side effects occur beyond search. This is minimal and potentially misleading for a tool with mutable behavior.

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 short but not effectively concise; it omits essential context and uses unclear phrasing. The single sentence does not earn its place because it introduces ambiguity ('validated fixed-form', 'optionally register') instead of clarifying the tool's behavior.

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?

Given 19 parameters, no annotations, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address parameter semantics, side effects, prerequisites, or selection criteria, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 19 parameters. It does not explain the required userQuery and searchTerms, the purpose of the many alias parameters, or how the various optional settings behave. The agent must infer everything from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a complex tool.

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 identifies the primary action ('Search Jamendo') and a secondary side effect ('optionally register a result'), so an agent can tell it is a Jamendo search tool. However, the phrase 'validated fixed-form music preferences' is jargon-heavy and does not clarify what inputs constitute those preferences, and it does not meaningfully distinguish the tool from Jamendo-related siblings like cassette_jamendo_setup.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as cassette_match_bgm or cassette_jamendo_setup. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether this tool is the right choice for a given music-matching task.

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