Now Playing on KaboomKartell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It enumerates exactly which data will be returned, including special handling for off-air channels. This goes beyond a generic 'get current track' and gives the agent a clear model of the response structure and edge cases.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses three brief sentences to cover the main behavior, parameter usage, and an edge case. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 the simple parameter set and the lack of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the response fields, the optional parameter, and off-air behavior, enabling the agent to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly with no gaps.

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 the schema already explains the optional channel parameter and its allowed values. The description's 'Omit channel' instruction duplicates the schema's 'omit for both,' adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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's function: reporting what is currently airing on KBK radio per channel, with a detailed list of returned fields (live track title, artist, position, AI disclosure, stream URL, current slot label, next track). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like get_schedule or get_next_drop.

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 implies the tool is for current playback status and clarifies the channel parameter behavior ('Omit "channel" to get both channels'). However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or mention when not to use this tool, though the context is clear enough.

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