taste_diamond_rotation

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

The description explicitly notes 'Read-only, no auth', which clearly communicates that the tool has no side effects and requires no credentials. It also implies the tool performs analysis on listening history rather than mutating state. Given no annotations were provided, this level of behavioral disclosure is solid, though it does not mention potential rate limits 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 concise sentence that packs in the core purpose, selection criteria, and a helpful note on read-only/no-auth behavior. The metaphorical language is slightly decorative but does not bloat the description. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the tool's main function.

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 description conveys the tool's selection logic and side-effect profile, and the response_format parameter hints at output styles. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state what the returned data will contain (e.g., track IDs, metadata, or a summary). This leaves a modest gap in completeness for an agent deciding whether the tool's output will satisfy a task.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (statsfm_user, max_results, track_count, response_format) with types, constraints, defaults, and enum values. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to 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 identifies the tool's purpose: surfacing mid-tier lifetime tracks (rank ~20–60) that have not been recently streamed, framed as 'deep cuts to re-polish'. It uses a metaphorical verb ('Diamond-mining rotation') rather than a literal one like 'list' or 'recommend', but the intended behavior is still reasonably specific and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 states the tool is read-only and requires no auth, which is useful operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings like taste_forgotten_bangers, taste_revival_queue, or taste_obsession_ladder, nor does it provide concrete examples of appropriate use.

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