jam_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing, but does not explain what 'notable' means, how results are sorted, the effect of the limit parameter, or any potential side effects. The lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (notable jams) and includes the optional filter. Efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has an output schema (content unknown), but the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the limit parameter, the meaning of 'notable', or any usage context. For an agent to invoke this correctly, it would need more details about the output and default behavior. The description is inadequate for a tool with only two optional parameters.

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 for the schema's lack of explanatory text. It only hints at the song filter ('optionally filtered to one song') but does not name the parameter or explain the limit parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb (list) and resource (ElGoose jam charts), and mentions optional song filtering, which distinguishes it from siblings like song_history and song_stats that focus on a specific song's history. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, when not to use, or any selection criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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