get_smart_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'generates' suggests a read-only operation, but this is implicit. For a tool with no annotations, the description should explicitly state such traits.

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 a clear purpose sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' list. Each parameter is explained concisely. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Mood: relax, energy, focus, etc.' could be more specific) but overall efficient.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the purpose and all parameters adequately. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Missing details like rate limits or prerequisites are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides clear explanations for all 9 parameters, including possible values for mode, default values, and usage notes (e.g., case-insensitive partial match for genres). This significantly exceeds baseline expectations.

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 clearly states the tool generates lists based on stats with advanced filtering, covering multiple modes and filter options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_tag or get_similar_songs, which have different scopes.

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. While the description implies it's for generating smart candidates based on stats, it doesn't specify exclusions or context. Sibling tools like analyze_library or validate_playlist_rules could overlap; the lack of comparative cues lowers the score.

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