Expand a Roon item into tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool returns track candidates with session-scoped item keys (which expire soon), that non-expandable items return empty tracks with a 'skipped reason' rather than throwing an error, and that results should be used promptly with enqueue_and_play. This provides critical behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the primary use case and action, then explains the input source (itemKey from search_music), then describes the output and error behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (expanding items to tracks) and absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: input type, output nature (track candidates with session-scoped keys), lifecycle hint (use promptly), error handling (empty tracks with skipped reason), and limit parameter. It feels complete and leaves no major questions.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that itemKey comes from a recent search_music candidate and clarifying the default limit (10). This extra context helps the agent understand the usage pattern, earning a 4.

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: expanding a Roon item (artist, album, genre, or playlist) into a concrete list of playable tracks. It uses specific verb+resource ('expand a Roon item into tracks') and provides concrete use case examples ('what tracks are on this album?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_music (which returns candidates) and enqueue_and_play (which plays tracks).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after search_music when the user wants a concrete list of songs'. It provides clear context for use cases like previewing tracks, building a queue, or picking a track. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., not for playback control) and indirectly points to alternatives like enqueue_and_play for playing.

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