cassette_list_track_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a list (implying read-only), but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or any side effects. The description offers minimal insight beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant information.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and allowed file types. However, it omits details like output structure (e.g., list of file names or URLs), prerequisites (e.g., track existence), and whether the list is exhaustive. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without guessing.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage (only fileType has a schema description). The description lists the enum values (audio, promo, footages, verticalVideos, video) matching the schema, adding context that these are file categories. However, trackId is not explained, leaving its meaning implicit. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 resource 'uploaded files on a track', enumerating the specific file categories (audio, promo, footages, verticalVideos, video) and the purpose 'to verify uploads'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like cassette_upload_track_file (upload) and cassette_get_track (metadata) as a read-oriented listing operation.

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 provides a purpose ('to verify uploads') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. cassette_list_clips or cassette_list_footages), nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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