crompton_liner_notes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns markdown body for a track, describes the nature of content (atmospheric prose, hand-authored, not canonical), and distinguishes from lyrics. Missing minor details like auth or rate limits, but still strong.

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 clear purpose, then nature, then exclusions, then return format, then alternative tool. Each sentence contributes value, though slightly verbose with poetic phrasing.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description fully covers purpose, content type, usage guidelines, and return format. No output schema is needed, and the description is adequate for an AI agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (parameter described as 'Track number (1-13)'). The description does not add new semantic information about the parameter beyond confirming it's a track number, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the hand-authored liner notes for a track' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool crompton_album_liner_notes by noting the album version returns summary stats, and clarifies that the content is not lyrics or canon.

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 says when to use this tool vs crompton_album_liner_notes, and provides guidance on how to treat the output (scene-setting, not quote as story-canon). No ambiguity about context.

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