get_tracks_by_bpm_range

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 states the tool retrieves tracks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles edge cases like invalid BPM values. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be more integrated (e.g., merging the first sentence with the sections) for better flow.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of tracks'), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool with no annotations and multiple siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'bpm_min' is the 'Minimum BPM' and 'bpm_max' is the 'Maximum BPM', clarifying the parameters' roles in defining a range. However, it doesn't specify units, valid ranges, or whether values are inclusive/exclusive, leaving some ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Get tracks within a specific BPM range.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('tracks'), and the BPM range adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tracks_by_key' or 'search_tracks', which could also filter tracks by different criteria.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_tracks_by_key' or 'search_tracks', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal contexts for BPM-based filtering. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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