Suggest Next Track

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

The description discloses the core behavioral logic: ranking candidates by BPM range, Camelot key compatibility, and requested energy movement. However, with no annotations and all parameters optional, it does not clarify side effects (if any), what happens when no input is provided, or how the target crate is selected. The main ranking behavior is transparent, but the edge-case behavior is not.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the purpose and ranking rules, the second gives the input contract. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 sufficient for the common invocation path, but gaps remain: the tool may be called with zero required parameters, the description does not say how the crate is chosen, and 'limit' is left undocumented. The output schema likely covers return shape, so that omission is not penalized, but the input/selection ambiguity matters.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does for four of five parameters: bpm (±8%), camelot (compatible key), energy_direction ('up'|'down'|'hold'), and current_file (one of two input modes). Only 'limit' lacks any semantic explanation, which keeps this from being a 5.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('crate tracks'), then sharpens it with concrete criteria: BPM tolerance, Camelot compatibility, and energy direction. This makes its job unmistakable and clearly distinct from the DJ-tool siblings, which are about playback, effects, and device control.

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 clearly communicates the intended use — choose the next compatible track from a crate — and even explains how to provide the current musical context (file path or bpm+camelot). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling appears to overlap with this recommendation role, so the guidance is clear enough.

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