get_genre_profile

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., that it's a lookup of typical style elements). There is no information about side effects, authentication, or side effects beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the output contents. No extraneous words, and every sentence adds value.

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 the output schema exists (reducing need to detail returns), the description covers the core output elements. It is missing explicit examples or valid genre names, but for a simple single-parameter lookup, it is nearly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'genre' parameter is a style name but does not specify valid values, format, or examples. The description mostly describes the output rather than clarifying the parameter's semantics.

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 explicitly lists the elements returned (progressions, scales, BPM range, instruments, drum rhythms) and labels it as a 'lookup,' making the tool's purpose very clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_style' by using 'profile' and 'RECOMMEND-side lookup.'

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 a vague context ('RECOMMEND-side lookup') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, when not to use it, or any alternatives. The lack of exclusions or criteria limits the usefulness for tool selection.

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