ass_karaoke_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It implies read-only behavior ('Read') and explicitly notes that discrepancy_cs is 'reported explicitly, never corrected here,' which is a useful behavioral trait. It also describes the return shape thoroughly. It does not mention error handling or required document state beyond 'open document,' keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clearly labeled Arguments and Returns sections. It is somewhat long, but the detailed return documentation is justified because there is no output schema. Every section earns its place, though the return field list is dense.

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 a moderately complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides complete parameter semantics and a full return structure. It could be more complete by stating error cases or that the document must be open, but it covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does fully. It explains 'index' as a 0-based line index in doc.events() order for an open document, and 'doc_id' as an open document id that defaults to the current one. Both parameters are completely documented in the description.

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+resource: 'Read the parsed karaoke of one line.' It is clear what it does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like ass_karaoke_tags_only or ass_karaoke_export, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by saying it reads karaoke from an open document, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling to use for other karaoke-related tasks.

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