list_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists filter criteria and does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, result shape, or any limits beyond the limit/offset parameters. It does not mention whether filters are combined as AND/OR or whether the query is fuzzy, which an agent would need to know for accurate invocation.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists all filter dimensions compactly. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse, though the comma-separated list could be slightly better structured for readability.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not state whether all filters are optional, how they combine (AND/OR), what the response contains (e.g., track IDs, metadata), or any default behavior. An agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior beyond the filter inputs.

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 43% (only tags, query, camelot have descriptions). The description compensates by explicitly naming 'bpm range' (mapping to bpm_min/bpm_max), 'camelot code', 'genre tags', and 'limit/offset', giving meaning to otherwise undocumented parameters. It clarifies that the query matches title/artist/album. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not detail accepted formats for camelot or tags.

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 action (search) and the resource (library), and enumerates the specific filter dimensions (title/artist/album, bpm range, camelot code, genre tags, limit/offset). This distinguishes it from siblings like track_detail or stats without ambiguity.

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 description implies this is the general search tool for library tracks, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., 'for a single track use track_detail') or provide exclusions. Context from sibling names suggests the use case, but the description itself gives no explicit guidance.

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