crompton_album_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (edges and six kinds) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is adequately transparent for a read-only graph retrieval.

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 concise (two sentences), well-structured, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second gives usage context and a pairing suggestion.

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 the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the data structure, and how to use it, with no gaps.

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 no parameters (0 params), and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't.

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 tool returns an 'Album-wide cross-reference graph' with every edge where one track references another, listing six specific kinds. This distinguishes it from siblings like crompton_album_characters, which focuses on characters.

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 explicit use cases: 'who references whom' or 'what tracks share themes', and pairs with a complementary tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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