song_stats

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 behavioral traits. It only names the stats but doesn't state whether this is a safe read operation, if any side effects exist, or what 'current gap' specifically means. It doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or behavior beyond the stat names. While the output schema may clarify return values, the description itself adds little behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence with a colon and list. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 a simple 2-parameter schema and output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should clarify the meaning of the stats (e.g., 'current gap') and the purpose of include_related. It also lacks usage context relative to sibling tools. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 explain any parameters. The 'song' parameter is implied but not detailed, and 'include_related' is completely unexplained. The description mentions stats but not how the parameters affect the output. Since the schema provides only names/types, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so.

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 indicates the tool returns stats for a song, enumerating the specific stats: times played, debut, last played, current gap, jamchart count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like song_history (which focuses on history) and jam_chart (which focuses on jamcharts). However, the description uses the noun 'Stats' rather than an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', which slightly reduces clarity.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use song_stats instead of song_history or jam_chart, nor does it mention any context or prerequisites. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, but the lack of any usage direction makes it hard for an agent to decide.

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