vibo_list_section_song_ideas

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the return shape (title, songsCount, _id) and the contextual nature of the data (DJ's suggestions). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value—return fields and downstream tool references. 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 no output schema, the description properly names the return fields (title, songsCount, _id) and explains the typical usage flow with sibling tools. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, this is a complete description for an agent to select and use the tool 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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (eventId, sectionId, skip, limit), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline criteria.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('the DJ's suggested song-idea collections for a section') with a clear scope. It also names the return fields (title, songsCount, _id), distinguishing it from the sibling tool vibo_list_song_ideas_songs, which lists songs within a collection.

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 gives explicit next-step guidance: after getting a song-ideas _id, use vibo_list_song_ideas_songs to see suggested songs, then vibo_add_song_to_section to add them. This clearly situates the tool within a workflow and differentiates it from related tools.

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