Discogs: list master versions

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read-only listing operation. However, it does not add behavioral details beyond what is already conveyed by the annotation (e.g., it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the response format). The phrase 'all known' suggests exhaustive listing but does not elaborate on behavior like automatic paging.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant wording, earning every word.

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?

For a simple list operation with pagination parameters in the schema and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It clearly identifies the scope ('all known pressings/versions') but does not specify the return format or pagination behavior, which is a minor gap given the presence of pagination parameters. Overall, the tool is well-contextualized within its sibling set.

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 already provides descriptions for 'page' and 'per_page', covering 67% of the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the purpose and tool name make 'master_id' self-explanatory. Given the schema coverage is not extremely low, the description does not need to heavily compensate.

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 'List all known pressings/versions of a master release' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (master versions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like discogs_get_master (which fetches master details) and discogs_get_release (which fetches a specific release), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool is used to enumerate all versions of a master release, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no direct mention of when to prefer this over discogs_get_master or discogs_get_release, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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