track_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get detailed information', which is essentially the operation name and doesn't reveal what fields are returned, whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-formed sentence that immediately communicates the core action and target. It contains no redundant words and front-loads the verb, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to mention return value format, whether metadata is included by default, or any side effects. For a tool that retrieves detailed track information, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable.

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 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning by specifying the track is identified by its ID, clarifying trackId. However, the include object with metadata boolean is entirely unexplained, leaving the caller to guess its effect. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the verb 'get' with the resource 'detailed information about a specific track by its ID', clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like track_playlists or track_update by emphasizing detailed information, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 implies usage when a caller has a trackId and needs track details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over library_search or track_playlists. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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