song_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the ordering (most recent first) and says nothing about the required 'song' parameter, the effect of 'limit' or 'include_related', or the nature of the output. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment rather than a complete tool description. It is concise but not sufficiently informative for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, how to use the parameters, or any constraints. The single clause about ordering is not enough to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters. The parameter names are self-descriptive to a degree, but 'include_related' is ambiguous and no compensation is provided by the description.

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 identifies the tool as providing a history of song plays, ordered most recent first. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', the noun phrase is understandable and distinguishes this from siblings like song_stats or jam_chart.

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 implies the tool is used to view a song's play history, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives such as song_stats or get_setlist. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so usage context is only implied.

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