find_kicks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'rank' implies a non-mutating analysis, and the description explains the matching basis and the pack filter. However, it does not say whether this operation is purely read-only, whether it can be slow over 'every kick', or what happens if no target profile exists.

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 compact, front-loads the core action, and every phrase adds information. The second sentence adds a necessary prerequisite. It is slightly dense, with jargon packed into the parenthetical, but still efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values flavors. It covers purpose, the pack parameter, and the target-profile prerequisite. But it omits any clarification of `n` and does not mention failure or readiness conditions, so coverage is adequate but not complete.

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 only explains `pack` ('narrows to one library'). The `n` parameter is completely undocumented beyond its schema default of 10, leaving the agent to infer that it likely controls result count. This is a meaningful gap.

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 specific action ('Rank every kick one-shot') against a defined criterion (the target's kick profile), and lists the profile dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_bass_patches or find_references.

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?

It provides an explicit prerequisite: a target with a profile (a reference or a genre with the finish line built). It also explains how the pack parameter narrows scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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