vibo_list_section_song_ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (title, songsCount, _id), but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or pagination despite skip/limit params. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the follow-up workflow in the second. Every clause earns its place with no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, plus it describes the downstream chaining. It is largely complete for a read-only list tool, with only pagination behavior left implicit.

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 eventId, sectionId, skip, and limit are all documented in the schema itself. The description only implies section scoping and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and a distinct resource (the DJ's suggested song-idea collections for a section), and even enumerates the return fields (title, songsCount, _id). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like vibo_list_song_ideas_songs and vibo_get_section_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?

Explicitly sets up the workflow: use a returned _id with vibo_list_song_ideas_songs to view songs, then vibo_add_song_to_section to add them. This gives clear context and names the alternatives, though it lacks an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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