vibo_list_section_song_ideas

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about the response shape (title, songsCount, _id). It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but those are largely covered by the schema and the tool is a simple read-only listing operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return shape is included, and the follow-up workflow is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward read-only listing tool, the description covers the purpose, the output fields, and the downstream workflow. The schema covers the optional paging parameters, and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, so nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 all parameters (skip, limit, eventId, sectionId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond implying that returned song-idea _ids will be used with another tool, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the DJ's suggested song-idea collections for a section.' It clarifies the returned fields and distinguishes the tool from related siblings by routing the song-ideas _id to vibo_list_song_ideas_songs.

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 clear workflow context: list collections, then use the returned _id with vibo_list_song_ideas_songs, then add songs with vibo_add_song_to_section. It names the relevant sibling tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like vibo_get_section_songs.

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