taste_genre_bridge

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the safety burden, and it discharges it by stating 'Read-only, no auth' — no side effects, no credentials needed — and by hinting at the output shape with 'evidence + risk per pick.' It does not discuss rate limits or data sources, but for a read-only spec tool these are minor omissions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the distinguishing output, then the safety/auth facts. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description only needs to cover safety and return shape, which it does via 'Read-only, no auth' and 'evidence + risk per pick.' The only slight gap is that 'spec' is not expanded, though 'Read-only' resolves the main ambiguity of whether it creates a playlist.

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 six parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'spanning two genres' adds minor relational meaning by clarifying that from_genre and to_genre are the two endpoints of a bridge, but it does not add format or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('picks') and resource (tracks spanning two genres), and the 'genre-bridge ... spanning two genres' scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling taste playlist tools like taste_era_playlist, taste_forgotten_bangers, and taste_to_playlist, none of which bridge two genres. It also names distinct output elements — evidence + risk per pick — which further signals what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer to use this when a two-genre bridge playlist is desired, but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and names no alternatives. Given the large sibling family of taste_* playlist tools, explicit routing would materially help, so it stops at 3.

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