reference_song_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as a non-mutating list over a curated database, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or pagination. For a simple enumeration this is acceptable, though not richly transparent.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The verb 'List' and the scope 'all known reference songs' are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, side-effect-free list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope: all reference songs in the curated database. It does not define 'reference song' or describe the response shape, but neither is strictly required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed, matching the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 operation (list all) and resource (reference songs in the curated database), so it is clear and not a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling reference_song_lookup, but the 'all' scope makes that distinction largely inferable.

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 given about when to use this tool versus reference_song_lookup, mix_match_reference, or other reference-related siblings. The agent is left to infer that a listing tool is appropriate for browsing all reference songs rather than looking up a specific one.

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