get_genre_filepaths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: token-optimized return of only filepaths, case-insensitive substring matching, and absolute path output. This goes beyond schema and gives the agent actionable expectations, though it omits potential error conditions.

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 compact, with a clear summary line, a brief context sentence, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return format, and behavioral quirks, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter. It explains the 'genre' parameter as a case-insensitive substring match, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Genre' title.

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 opening line 'Get filepaths for all tracks matching a genre' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_track_details and search_tracks by emphasizing it returns only filepaths for token efficiency.

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 a concrete use case: 'Useful for creating export scripts for selective library exports.' This implies when to choose this tool over alternatives that return richer data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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