statsfm_recaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it calls a remote API, whether authentication is needed, or whether any side effects or rate limits apply.

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, compact sentence with no fluff. It could be improved with a verb and a slightly more organized structure, but it remains efficient and readable.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only vaguely mentions 'stream totals and catalog breadth.' It does not clarify what fields are returned, what 'catalog breadth' includes, or how the response_format parameter changes the output. This leaves important context missing for correct invocation and result expectations.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema itself, so the tool description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies the tool as a year-in-review recap with stream totals and catalog breadth for a calendar year. It lacks an explicit verb or a crisp contrast with siblings like statsfm_top_tracks, but the purpose is still specific and understandable.

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 use for annual recap purposes but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as year_in_review, year_explorer, or statsfm_top_tracks. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given.

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