Tell Show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the table-like output, the fields shown, the exact NOT MOVING flag criteria, and the effect of min_shrink and open_only. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though the 'show' framing strongly implies it.

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 core purpose and then adds flag logic and usage guidance without repetition. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 covers output shape and important flagging behavior, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, for a four-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it omits semantics for project and id and does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior.

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 supply parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains open_only and min_shrink, but it never describes the required project parameter or the optional id parameter, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.

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 identifies the resource as the song's tell ledger and explains that it renders a table per tell with named occurrences, last measures, and verdicts. It is specific enough to distinguish this from generic analysis tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like tell_status, tell_check, or tell_measure.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: run it before every round, and treat NOT MOVING tells as requiring a different method rather than a retry. It also explains that open_only=False includes closed tells. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use this tool.

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