List music tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds no new information. The description does add useful behavioral context by disclosing the catalog's structure (genres plus per-genre languages and voices), but says nothing about caching, freshness, or how large the result may be.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the catalog contents, and the content description is not padded. The appended 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotations and is the only wasted text.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description's job is mainly to explain what comes back — which it does by naming the genre keys, languages, and voices. Complete enough to call correctly, with only minor omissions such as result size or format.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description usefully clarifies the shape of the returned catalog entries (genre keys mapped to languages and narration voices), which is the closest analogue to parameter meaning for a filterless listing tool.

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?

It states a clear verb-plus-resource ('List the background-music catalog') and then enumerates exactly what the catalog contains: `music.track` genre keys, voice languages, and narration voices per genre. That is far more specific than a bare title restatement, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the voice-generation siblings it feeds into.

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?

Calling this a list of 'valid `music.track` values' implies it is a lookup/reference step used before invoking a generation tool, which is reasonable implied usage. However, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated and no sibling (e.g. pedra_generate_voice) is named as the downstream alternative.

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