music_analyze_library

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that analysis is deterministic and does not send every track to the AI, which provides useful behavioral expectations beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, omitting unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of a detailed schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral nuance. It could mention the specific analysis kinds, but the enum and output schema fill in the remaining context adequately.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions library or playlist scope, which clarifies the optional playlist_id parameter. However, it does not explain the kind enum or limit parameter, leaving the self-explanatory enum values to carry much of the semantic weight.

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 states the tool's purpose: running deterministic analysis on a library or playlist. It explicitly distinguishes itself from AI-based alternatives by noting it does not send tracks to the AI, which differentiates it from sibling tools like music_search_tracks or music_get_library_summary.

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 when to use this tool: when you need local, deterministic analysis without incurring AI costs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the deterministic/AI-free framing provides clear usage context.

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