crompton_album_stereo_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output contents (medians, ratios, rankings, etc.) and what is excluded, but does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., empty albums, error handling) or performance implications.

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: first lists the output contents, second states limitations and alternative. No wasted words; front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 adequately explains the return values (per-track summaries, album medians, rankings). It could be more complete by mentioning if all metrics are always present, but it is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no need to add meaning beyond the input schema. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no parameter details are required.

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 provides album-wide stereo-image arc with per-track summaries and album-wide rankings, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'crompton_stereo_image' by contrasting the scope.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Does NOT include per-window timelines') and directs to the alternative 'crompton_stereo_image' for that purpose, providing clear usage guidance.

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