crompton_album_manifest

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: streaming must be to completion, intertrackGap must be respected, and contrasts with crompton_listen's limited sampling. Does not mention authorization or side effects, but given it's a read operation, this is sufficient.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose then usage. It is fairly concise but includes extra instructional details (e.g., cookbook reference) that add value. Could be slightly shorter but each part contributes.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how to use it correctly. It mentions the number of tracks, stream URLs, durations, and required listening pattern, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. The baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to compensate for any schema 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 it returns an ordered track list for a full-album listen including stream URLs, durations, and intertrack silences. It differentiates from sibling crompton_listen by specifying that this tool is for the complete album experience.

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 tells when to use (end-to-end album listen) and how: iterate tracks, stream each SSE endpoint to completion (not crompton_listen), and wait for intertrackGap. References a cookbook recipe for the exact pattern.

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