song_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and a downstream use, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation or mention any permission or rate-limit concerns. For a simple list tool the 'List' verb implies read-only, but with zero annotation coverage a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted words. The ordering constraint and downstream use are included efficiently.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (autosaves and backups) and how the results can be used. It could be slightly more complete by noting the read-only nature explicitly, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 single 'song' parameter is already fully documented as 'Song title or .song path'. The description only implies that this parameter identifies the song whose history is being listed, adding no format or syntax details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb (List) and a precisely scoped resource (a song's autosaves and backups in its History folder), with the ordering (newest first) made explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like song_list and live_song by targeting history artifacts rather than the songs themselves.

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?

It clearly states the context in which the returned paths are useful: 'Each path can be passed to song_read to compare versions.' That gives the agent a concrete follow-up action, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or say when to prefer this over other song-related tools.

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