lc_read_song

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

With no annotations, the description itself conveys a read-only operation through 'Read' and 'print', and it discloses the output representation with a compact pattern example. It does not mention error cases or permission requirements, but for a non-mutating inspection tool the main behavioral surface is adequately covered.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action, the output content, and a compact format example. No filler or repeated schema details.

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 there is no output schema, the description supplies the missing output format (compact per-page patterns) and the intended use context. The remaining parameter semantics are already fully covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents folders, song, pages, channels, and includeEmptyPages. The description reinforces that output is per-page and per-channel, which maps to the pages and channels parameters, but it does not add substantive semantics beyond the schema. 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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a song'), and explains the output ('settings plus each channel as compact per-page patterns'). It also gives a concrete output example, and the read-only intent clearly differentiates it from sibling write/delete tools like lc_create_song, lc_write_page, and lc_delete_song.

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?

'so you can inspect and edit existing music' implies the tool is for pre-edit inspection, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools such as lc_write_page or lc_set_notes are not referenced, so the routing is left to inference.

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