spotify_dj_analyze

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that audio is fetched on every call (no feature cache), that the analysis is stored in a position-safe manner, and that legacy features can override provider values. These details clarify side effects and performance traits that annotations don't capture.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds distinct information (purpose, missing-feature policy, caching behavior). There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description leaves gaps: it doesn't explain the source parameter, the overrides array (beyond a $defs description), or how the stored analysis is retrieved or used. 'Position-safe' is mentioned but not elaborated. For a tool with 5 parameters and side effects, more context would be helpful, but core behavior is covered.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, and the description partially compensates by explaining missing_feature_policy (anchor/error) and features override. However, source selection, overrides (only covered by a $defs description), and playlist_id are not explained in the prose, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch current audio evidence and store a position-safe DJ analysis.' It distinguishes this from sibling DJ tools (plan, apply, restore, audit) by identifying it as the analysis step, and uses specific terminology like 'position-safe' to convey scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spotify_audio_features or spotify_dj_plan is given. The mention of 'anchor' and 'error' policies and 'no cache' provides parameter-level behavior but does not address tool selection or workflow context.

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