get_cloudcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The phrase 'Get details' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is accurate but minimal. It does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found handling), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is not misleading but lacks depth, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose plus an args block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value (e.g., 'specific', 'by its key'). The use of an Args block is a clean, structured way to document the parameter without unnecessary prose.

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?

For a simple single-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating when to prefer this over search_cloudcasts or get_user_cloudcasts, but that is more of a usage guideline issue. Overall, it is complete enough for its complexity.

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?

The schema provides only a required string parameter with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by explaining 'cloudcast_key: The mix key' and giving a concrete example ('/NTSRadio/nts-breakfast-show/'), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'Get details of a specific Mixcloud mix by its key.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), resource ('Mixcloud mix'), and lookup method ('by its key'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_cloudcasts (searching) and get_user_cloudcasts (listing user mixes).

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you have a known cloudcast key and want its details. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. However, the presence of sibling tools like search_cloudcasts (for discovery) and get_user_cloudcasts (for listing) makes the intended context reasonably clear, though not explicitly stated.

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