analyze_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns: Analysis results' without detailing the output structure, side effects, read-only status, or performance implications. The listed allowed values for parameters are more about parameter semantics than behavioral traits.

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 main purpose, and clearly structured with Args and Returns sections. It contains no fluff, though 'Returns: Analysis results' is somewhat vague and could be more specific without sacrificing brevity.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. However, it lacks usage context (when to pick this vs. other library tools) and behavioral details, making it only minimally complete for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.

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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and enumerating allowed values for group_by (genre, key, year, artist, rating) and aggregate_by (count, playCount, totalTime), plus clarifying top_n as a limit. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 performs group-by and aggregation analysis on the library, using the verb 'analyze' and naming the resource. It is distinguishable from sibling getter tools by implying a computation/aggregation rather than simple retrieval, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_library_stats, get_most_played_tracks, or other analysis tools. The description lacks any conditional use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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