taste_revival_queue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden and it does disclose that the tool is read-only and requires no auth, plus reveals the search_tracks fallback behavior. It does not detail fallback semantics or output behavior, but the safety-critical traits are explicitly stated.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key safety/fallback traits. No filler or 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?

The description explains what the tool composes and that it is read-only, but no output schema is provided and the return shape/fallback mechanics are left vague. For an agent to know exactly what a 'revival queue' with 'search_tracks fallback line' looks like in the response, more detail would be needed.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 identifies a concrete function: building an ordered re-listen queue from forgotten favorites and dormant-affinity artists, with a search_tracks fallback. That is specific enough to understand the tool's resource and output, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like taste_forgotten_bangers or statsfm_forgotten_favorites.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over the many related taste/queue tools. The phrase 'Revival queue builder' implies a use case, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, so an agent must infer when it is appropriate.

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