suggest_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies ranking/scoring but never states whether the operation is read-only, deterministic, how ties are broken, how min_score filters results, or how the two input modes (pool vs library_path) behave — all significant for a 7-param tool.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, two mutually exclusive input paths, and no output schema or annotations, the description omits too much. The relationship between current/current_id/library_path and the meaning of the returned ranking are left entirely unexplained.

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 57%, so several parameters (limit, min_score, exclude_ids, current_id) are undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate. The signals it names (bpm, Camelot key, genre, energy) are not parameters at all — they are attributes of the track objects, so the sentence adds no real parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb (rank) and resource (next tracks) and names the signals used, so the core function is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling plan_set, so it stops short of 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 versus plan_set, nor any indication of prerequisites or ordering (e.g., when to supply a pool vs library_path). The agent must infer invocation context entirely from the schema.

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