list_music

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 discloses output structure ('names and durations') which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits safety/disposition details (e.g., read-only nature) and pagination behavior despite having pagination parameters.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first declares purpose and output, the second provides critical usage context for the downstream workflow. No redundancy or filler content.

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 low-complexity tool (2 optional params, no nested objects) without an output schema, the description appropriately compensates by specifying the return values ('names and durations'). It also connects the output to the 'create_short' workflow. Could mention pagination implications, but schema coverage mitigates this gap.

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 100% (page and limit are fully documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain pagination strategy or defaults), so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 provides a specific verb ('List') + resource ('background music tracks') + return details ('names and durations'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_game_videos, list_meme_hooks, list_templates) by specifying 'background music'.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use the exact musicName when creating shorts.' This establishes the relationship to sibling tool 'create_short' and tells the agent when to invoke this tool (to get valid music names for short creation). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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