organize_progress

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does deliver one real trait: "Reads the cache only", telling the agent this is a cheap local read rather than an API call. It does not say whether that cache can be stale or must be primed by load_playlists, which matters for a cache-only tool. That partial coverage lands at 3.

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 metric definition is front-loaded and the scoping note (cache-only, exclusion from group_tracks) follows in a logical order. The parenthetical quoting of "done" and "manual" and the trailing fragment slightly blunt the flow but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with no inputs the remaining burden is explaining what is being measured — which the description does via the done/manual definitions and cache note. The only gap is freshness/preconditions for the cache read.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The prose instead spends its words on the semantics of the returned metric, which is the right allocation.

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 concept: the percentage of the library organized, with explicit definitions of the two contributing states ("done" from a draft-built playlist, "manual" from hand assignment). It is clearly a progress-metric read rather than a listing or mutation, though it never explicitly names siblings like collection_stats or show_overview to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool to check organizing progress, and the note that done tracks are excluded from the next group_tracks gives useful cross-tool context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus collection_stats/show_overview, and no stated preconditions such as needing playlists loaded first.

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