library_hygiene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the critical behavioral trait: 'Read-only' and 'Suggests only — never mutates your library.' This is important for an agent deciding whether it can safely run this tool. It also discloses the low-confidence caveat for lone singles, but does not cover other potential behaviors like rate limits, output size, or failure modes.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the key information and avoids redundancy. The parenthetical '(low confidence)' and the explicit 'never mutates' earn their place. Slight deduction because the phrase 'consolidation analysis' is jargon that is only partially clarified by the subsequent flag explanation.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and a straightforward suggestion-only behavior, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. It describes the input domain ('liked tracks') and the outputs ('flags...'). With no output schema, it could have been more explicit about the exact return shape, but the 'flags' wording provides a sufficient mental model without overcomplicating.

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% — both max_results and response_format have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read-only album completion & consolidation analysis over your liked tracks.' It then concretely defines what it flags (near-complete albums, lone singles) and explicitly states that it only suggests, never mutates. This distinguishes it from the many library analysis siblings like dead_library_finder or library_coverage_report, which address different questions.

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 intended use case is implied through the scenario it describes — checking liked tracks for album completion and orphaned singles — but it does not name alternatives or state conditions like 'use this when you want to find albums worth saving.' No when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the selection from the description alone.

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