lc_list_instruments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about being a read-only listing operation ('List every...') and enumerates the exact contents returned (presets, syntax, letters, scales). While it does not discuss side effects, permissions, or edge cases, the 'list' verb strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and the explicit output inventory provides adequate transparency for such a simple tool.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('List every instrument preset') and then specifies the additional data returned (syntax, letters, scales). It ends with a practical usage hint. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what data will be returned and when to call it. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the description enumerates the full return content.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by mentioning what the tool returns, but because no parameters exist, there is nothing more to clarify. The empty schema covers the absence of parameters, so the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resources: instrument presets (with id and name), note modifier syntax, effect letters, and scales. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like lc_list_folders and lc_list_songs by naming a distinct resource domain (instruments) and by mentioning the exact data returned.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: 'Call this before composing so you pick real presets.' This is clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context (composing workflow) makes the intended usage obvious, and no direct alternative is needed.

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