Inspect Song Manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context on what the output includes (revision, stable IDs, inventories, intent, artifact provenance), which enriches understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and includes specific details. No wasted words, every part adds value.

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 output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description provides a clear summary of what the tool inspects. Missing explicit mention of prerequisite manifest existence, but overall sufficient.

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 50%; only 'path' has schema description. The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented 'response_format' parameter.

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 uses specific verbs 'Verify and summarize' targeting 'canonical song manifest', listing included elements. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vocaloid_create_song_manifest and vocaloid_build_song_manifest.

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 usage for inspecting existing manifests but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vocaloid_manifest_history or vocaloid_review_song. No exclusions or when-nots are mentioned.

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