Crate List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only 'analyzed' tracks are included and what fields are returned, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or the practical effect of the limit parameter, but these are secondary for a simple list tool.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, filter, and returned fields are all 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?

The description is adequate for a low-complexity list operation, especially since an output schema exists. However, it leaves the 'limit' parameter undocumented and offers no guidance on when this list should be used relative to track-selection or recommendation siblings, so it is not fully complete for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. An agent can guess that 'limit' restricts the result count, but the description provides no semantic detail about defaults, maximums, or how limit interacts with the output.

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 ('List'), resource ('crate'), and a meaningful qualifier ('analyzed tracks'), and it enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from the action-oriented sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any of them.

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 intended usage is implied: call this when you need to inspect analyzed tracks in the crate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about how this relates to tools like suggest_next_track.

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