get_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle transparency. It mentions the return format (dict with 'tracks' list) and the limit parameter, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or idempotence. Given the read-only nature, it is adequate but could add more behavioral context.

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 well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Note) and uses bullet points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values extensively. It covers the core task, parameters, constraints, and provides a pointer to a sibling tool. Slightly missing is a mention of what happens when seeds are empty, but overall it is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter (seed_artists, seed_tracks, seed_genres, limit) and the total seed constraint, and provides example genres. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get track recommendations based on seed artists, tracks, or genres.' It specifies the resource (track recommendations) and the basis (seeds), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tracks.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use search_tracks to find seed track/artist IDs' and lists example genres. It also imposes a constraint on total seeds (1-5). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and how to prepare inputs, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use cases beyond the seed limit.

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