get_now_playing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly. It specifies the returned dict fields, the null-field behavior when a reachable station sends no track titles, the MCP error raised when nothing is found, and the timeout clamping (1-60s) with shared-deadline semantics across candidates.

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 front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place — examples, clamping behavior, null semantics, and error behavior all add operational value without repetition.

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 compensates well for the missing output schema and annotations by covering return fields, null behavior, error behavior, and parameter semantics. Minor gaps remain: the station_matched field and the candidate-matching mechanism are mentioned but never explained, and there is no note about side effects or read-only status.

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 explain both parameters, and it does. station_name gets real-world examples ('Smooth FM Sydney' or 'smooth 95.3'), and timeout gains meaning beyond its integer type: units, clamping range, and its role as a shared deadline across all candidate station attempts.

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 lead sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the track currently playing on a radio station.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_station_by_uuid (metadata lookup) or search_radio_stations (discovery), and the return fields (artist, title) reinforce the unique purpose.

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?

Usage context is implied — an agent would infer to call this when it needs the currently playing track for a named station — but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it over the 29 sibling tools, nor names alternatives or exclusions. No statement distinguishes it from resolve_station_stream_url, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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