is_local_census

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the count-plus-list behavior, plus the practical significance of local files. It does not disclose pagination/truncation behavior or performance characteristics of walking up to 10,000 items.

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?

One tight sentence plus a read-only tag, front-loaded with the action. Every clause earns its place: the is_local=true clarification, the cross-device relevance, and the safety note.

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 read-only census tool with fully documented parameters, the core operation and rationale are covered. It could be more explicit about truncation and output-format outcomes, but nothing critical is ambiguous 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 schema already documents scan_cap, max_results, and response_format with defaults and semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate given the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: counts and lists saved tracks flagged is_local=true. The parenthetical ties directly to the tool name, making its purpose unambiguous. The practical note about tracks failing on other devices reinforces what the tool is for.

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?

Provides context ('these often fail to play on other devices') that implies when an agent would care, but names no alternatives or exclusion conditions. With nearby siblings like unplayable_saved_check and dead_library_finder, explicit routing would be more helpful.

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