Get children

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on operation-specific traits: pagination, the detail=true interaction that caps limit at 25, and the extra fields that mode injects. It doesn't state the default page size or how ordering works, but the important behavioral rules are disclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences, hierarchy mapping first, then the conditional flags, then the pagination constraint. No filler sentences and no repetition of structured fields beyond what adds meaning.

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?

For a six-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema, the description supplies hierarchy scope, pagination, the detail cap, and playlist gating. What's missing is only the default page size and any hint of returned record shape or ordering.

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?

With only 17% schema coverage, the description must carry the load, and it covers four of six parameters: detail (semantics plus the 25-item cap), playlist (the exact condition that requires it), and pagination via limit/offset. limit/offset defaults and the fields projection are left mostly to 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?

Names a specific verb+resource relationship and enumerates the concrete hierarchies it traverses (show→seasons, season→episodes, artist→albums, album→tracks, collection→items), which cleanly separates it from get_item, search, and get_extras.

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 container-type mapping tells an agent exactly which ratingKey kinds this applies to, and the playlist=true and detail=true notes give conditional guidance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_item or search when a single known item is wanted.

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