crompton_moment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool returns but does not disclose behavior for edge cases (e.g., out-of-range timestamps), or mention if it's read-only. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 long, with no wasted words. The first sentence packs dense, relevant information about outputs, and the second provides a clear use-case. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 lists the return fields (active frame, lyric line, etc.), which is sufficient for most use cases. However, it does not specify the format or types of these fields, which could be useful for an agent.

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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters (track and t), so the description adds minimal additional meaning. It implies the tool uses these parameters to pinpoint a moment but does not elaborate beyond the schema's definitions.

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 looks up 'what's happening at a specific millisecond' and lists the exact pieces of information returned (active frame, lyric line, section, character, nearest landmark). This specificity, along with the use-case hint 'For remember that part where... queries,' effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like crompton_lyrics or crompton_track.

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 a clear use-case with 'For remember that part where... queries,' which implies when to use this tool over others. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to siblings, leaving room for ambiguity.

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