track_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the fields returned but does not state that this is a read-only operation, how it handles missing IDs, whether there are permission requirements, or any performance implications. For a fetch tool, the safety profile is implicitly read-only, but the description adds no explicit behavioral context beyond the field list.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. This is an exemplar of efficient writing.

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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the return content well by listing the fields. However, it does not specify return format nuances (e.g., whether peaks are arrays, how crates are represented), error handling, or pagination. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent might still successfully call it, but there are minor gaps that prevent a higher score.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already states (an integer). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value about the expected format, range, or how to obtain a valid ID. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, though the simplicity of the single parameter prevents a score of 1.

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 returns a full row for one track and enumerates the specific data fields (tags, BPM/key/camelot, energy, peaks, crates). This is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings implicitly by emphasizing 'full row' versus list operations, but it doesn't name an alternative, so it's not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tracks or stats. An agent is left to infer that this is for fetching detailed information about a single track. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so the usage context is under-specified.

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