orphaned_artist_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the safety burden by explicitly saying 'Read-only'. It does not disclose that this is potentially a scan across multiple library sources with cost implications, nor does it describe output shape; the read-only note is useful but only partial.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The behavior is front-loaded, and the parenthetical definition plus read-only note earn their place.

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?

The core behavior is adequately explained, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the result looks like (list of artists, counts, report). It also does not mention that the scan may be expensive despite the dry_run and scan_cap parameters implying that cost. Adequate, but with 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 input schema describes all four parameters with defaults, bounds, and meaning, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no new parameter semantics, matching the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('asymmetries in your library') and then precisely defines the asymmetry: artists with saved tracks but no saved album, and vice versa. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unsave_orphan_tracks or library_coverage_report without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 makes the diagnostic intent clear and signals safety with 'Read-only', so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it names no alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, which would be valuable given the very large sibling tool set.

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