get_tracks

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned content categories (streams, titles, chapters). However, it does not say whether an item must already be playing, or what happens when nothing is loaded, which matters for a 'current item' scoped tool. An output schema exists, so failing to describe return structure is not penalized.

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?

Two short sentences, with the scope of what is listed front-loaded and the follow-up action second. No filler and no restatement of the name.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the intended next step adequately. The one gap is the prerequisite state of 'current item', which the description assumes rather than states.

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 schema-level for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies; the mention of stream numbers adds context about how the output feeds select_track.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it lists the streams (audio, video, subtitle) of the current item, and adds that titles and chapters are included. That is more precise than the bare name get_tracks, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listing tools such as get_available_videos.

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?

It explicitly states the downstream use: the stream numbers returned here are the input for select_track. That gives an agent a clear call sequence. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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