jam_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states what the tool returns ('notable jams'), but does not explain potential side effects, permissions, or any nuances like how 'notable' is determined, whether results are ordered, or how the limit parameter affects output. For a read-only data retrieval tool, this is a significant omission.

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 that front-loads the core function. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is both efficient and clear.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description is quite minimal and leaves out important context such as what 'notable' means, any limits on the number of jams returned, and whether the tool supports further filtering beyond song. This is sufficient for a simple query but not rich enough for full contextual completeness.

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 schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'song' is an optional filter, but it fails to explain the 'limit' parameter, which is present in the schema with a default of 25. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to use limit or what its effect is. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 returns 'Notable jams from the Phish.net jam charts' with an optional filter by song. The verb 'returns' is implied, and the resource is specific (jam charts), making it easy to understand what the tool does. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_setlist or song_stats, which focus on other data types.

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 gives a hint of when to use the tool (when you want jam chart data) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like song_history or song_stats. The 'optionally filtered to one song' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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