suno_library_list

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 mentions 'requires login', which adds useful context about authentication needs, but it doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and login requirement, and another detailing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function, but the parameter explanation could be integrated more seamlessly, and there's minor redundancy in stating 'Args:' separately.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's focus on purpose and parameters is adequate. However, with no annotations and only partial behavioral context (e.g., missing details on read-only nature or error cases), it's not fully complete. It meets minimum viability but has clear 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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'limit' by explaining it as 'Maximum number of tracks to return (default: 20)', which goes beyond the schema's basic type and title. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, but it doesn't cover edge cases like minimum values or error handling.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tracks from your Suno AI library'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suno_track_info' or 'suno_get_status', which might also retrieve track information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 some usage context by mentioning 'requires login', implying this tool should be used after authentication. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suno_track_info' for individual tracks or 'suno_generate_track' for creating new ones, leaving gaps in guidance.

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