dj_getPlayCountAnalytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (Get play count analytics) but does not mention the return format, whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or prerequisites like having history data available. The 'Get' verb implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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, clear sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the description is incomplete because it does not explain what 'play count analytics' returns. Without an output schema, an agent cannot know whether results are aggregates, per-track counts, date-bounded, or structured in any particular way. This ambiguity significantly hinders correct usage.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but no parameters exist, and schema coverage is trivially complete. There is nothing missing for an agent to understand about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('play count analytics for tracks') and source ('Rekordbox history'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dj_getHistoryStats and dj_getListeningPatterns, which have broader or different focuses.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, so an agent has no context for tool selection.

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