mcp-applemusic
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.5
- Disambiguation3/5
Mostly distinct resources with clear descriptions, but several overlapping pairs exist: favorite_song (by title) vs favorite_track (currently playing) is a genuinely confusing split, and search vs search_catalog vs play_song have overlapping discoverability concerns. DJ auto-transition also overlaps conceptually with set_track_start_finish for trimming purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5Very consistent itunes_verb_noun snake_case convention throughout, making the suite predictable. Deductions for mixing 'song' and 'track' terminology arbitrarily (favorite_song vs favorite_track vs rate_track), using bare verbs in itunes_play/pause/next, and the odd itunes_import_from_spotify which breaks the pattern.
Tool Count2/566 tools is excessive for coherence; this is well into the bloat category. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., favorite and rate variants by scope, or the multiple set_device functions). Even a complete music player control surface struggles to justify this many distinct entry points.
Completeness5/5The surface is remarkably complete: full playlist CRUD, playback control, metadata editing, stats/reporting, AirPlay device management, folder organization, search, lyrics, even Spotify import and share-link generation. If anything, it over-covers the domain, providing far more than a typical agent would ever need.
Average 3.8/5 across 66 of 66 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 25 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions the action (favorite/unfavorite) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., persistence, requires modification, might fail if playlist does not exist) or the return format. The behavior is inherently mutating but that is not explicitly stated, leaving the agent unaware.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single action sentence and a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could be structured better with a clearer 'when to use' note. It earns a solid 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple state-changing tool, but given no annotations or output schema, the description should cover side effects, persistency, and error handling. It lacks any of that, making it incomplete for an agent to judge side effects or success criteria. It does not explain what happens on unfavorite or if the playlist must exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides a generic explanation: 'playlist' is the name to star, and 'favorited' is True/False to star/unstar. This adds meaning beyond the schema names but is minimal; it does not address valid playlist names or error cases. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage and description compensates partially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: favorite/unfavorite a playlist in the Music app sidebar teaching that it operates on playlists. It distinguishes from sibling tools like itunes_favorite_song or itunes_favorite_album by specifying 'playlist', though it could be more explicit about the 'sidebar' context. It is adequate but not outstanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although the name indicates it favorites a playlist, it doesn't mention prerequisites (playlist exists) or that it's a toggle based on the 'favorited' parameter. Lacks recommendations or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description omits any mention of side effects, permissions, or potential behaviors (e.g., what happens if a playlist with the same name exists, whether it creates an empty playlist, or if it modifies the library). The user is left without information about the tool's internal behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description is clear about the action, it lacks context about the result (e.g., what is returned or if anything is returned at all) and any side effects. Given no output schema, this is partially acceptable, but the description does not mention error handling or success criteria, leaving some gaps for a simple creation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says 'with the given name,' which clarifies the 'name' parameter as the playlist's name, but provides no further detail such as allowed characters, length limits, or uniqueness requirements. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter's type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and the resource (a new playlist in Music), making it unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_playlist' or 'add_to_playlist' by explicitly naming the creation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'add_to_playlist' or 'create_playlist_folder'. It gives no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 the action (favorite/unfavorite) but does not mention side effects, such as whether the action is reversible, whether it affects the currently playing track's album only, or any potential errors (e.g., if no track is playing). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes a clear Args section for the parameter. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a brief note on prerequisites.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks context about the dependency on a currently playing track and any potential failure modes. The sibling tools suggest a rich ecosystem, and this description doesn't clarify how it fits in, such as whether it works with any track or only the current one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the single parameter 'favorited' as 'True to star/favorite the album, False to unstar.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean type and default value, though it could be more explicit about the default behavior (default is true, meaning favoriting by default).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to favorite/star or unfavorite the album of the currently playing track. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the distinction from sibling tools like itunes_favorite_song and itunes_favorite_playlist is implicit through the album focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when a track is playing and the user wants to favorite its album) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like itunes_favorite_song or itunes_favorite_playlist. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or conditions, such as requiring a currently playing track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states a creation action without disclosing potential side effects, error conditions, or behavior on existing folders. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args block is redundant with the schema but not harmful. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description fails to mention behavior on duplicate names, whether the folder can be nested, or how it integrates with sibling tools like itunes_move_playlist_to_folder. It lacks sufficient context for an agent to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It repeats 'name' and clarifies it's the folder name, but provides no additional constraints, format, or uniqueness details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a playlist folder for organizing multiple playlists, using a specific verb ('create') and resource ('playlist folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like itunes_create_playlist by explicitly referencing 'folder'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('organize multiple playlists') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions. It is not misleading but offers limited guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to indicate side effects, and the description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation without side effects. Given the 'get' prefix, it is implied, but the description does not add transparency beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies the action and the target, though it does not enumerate what 'information' is returned, which is acceptable given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (nothing to describe). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are none, it is perfectly adequate and earns a high score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'currently playing track', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_get_position or itunes_get_track_metadata. However, it is somewhat generic in what 'information' entails, so it could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of conditions or preferences, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what constitutes 'hours' (listening time or track total duration), how favorites are counted, or whether it excludes non-music items (like movies or podcasts). This is a read-only analytic tool, but the lack of safety/behavioral detail is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first. It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it could be broken into a lead sentence with a brief open/close note for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has simple output (a summary) and zero parameters, the description is largely complete. However, it does not clarify whether the stats are library-wide or device-specific, nor what exact metrics are included beyond the examples. The sibling tool itunes_get_listening_stats_by_date exists, so clarifying scope would help. Overall, adequate for a 0-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. This is a baseline 4 for parameter-less tools, as there is nothing to add beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates an analytics summary of the Music library and enumerates the key metric categories (tracks, playlists, favorites, hours). It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like itunes_get_listening_stats_by_date or itunes_get_listening_history, which focus on usage data rather than library-wide stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for library-level analytics but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar tools (e.g., itunes_get_listening_stats_by_date). Since it takes no parameters, the context is clear, but there is no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains what the modes mean but does not disclose whether shuffle must already be enabled, whether this call turns shuffle on, how it interacts with current playback, or what the result of the operation is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the action, and avoids filler. The Args block is immediately useful and each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter, the mode definitions make invocation straightforward. However, the absence of any behavioral context—such as prerequisites, side effects, or relationship to shuffle state—leaves notable gaps given there are no annotations and no output schema to clarify behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a default value with no enum or descriptions, while the description fully compensates by listing each allowed mode ('songs', 'albums', 'groupings') with a clear explanation of its behavior. This is exactly the semantic value needed beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Set shuffle granularity mode') and the resource being controlled. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling playback-mode tools like itunes_repeat, though 'shuffle' makes the scope reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description defines the mode values but never says when shuffle granularity should be configured.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, potential side effects, or permission requirements. The only extra detail is 'user playlist,' which implies exclusion of system playlists, but this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using one sentence for the action and a clear Args block. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter, but it lacks any information about post-deletion behavior, error conditions, or confirmations. Given that it is a destructive operation, it is incomplete without noting irreversibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's 'Args' section clarifies that the playlist parameter is the name of the playlist, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Playlist' title. Since the schema has no descriptions, this provides necessary clarity for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a user playlist from the Music library,' specifying the action, resource, and context. It is distinct from siblings like remove_from_playlist or create_playlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, consequences, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextual recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a non-destructive creation of a new playlist, but does not explicitly mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., source playlist existence), or whether all tracks/metadata are copied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without extraneous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple duplicate operation, but it lacks details such as return values, error conditions, or specific behaviors (e.g., whether the new playlist is empty or contains all tracks). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this minimal information may be insufficient for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description indirectly refers to the parameters by mentioning 'existing playlist' and 'new playlist', but does not explicitly define them. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal clarification beyond what the names imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (duplicate/clone) and the resource (playlist), distinguishing it from other playlist operations. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only states what the tool does, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_playlist or merge_playlists. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the core export action. It does not clarify whether the tool returns the exported data, writes to a file, or behaves when the playlist is missing. The read-only nature and side effects are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, it covers the core action and parameter semantics, but it lacks details about the return value or output format behavior (e.g., whether data is returned directly or saved to a file), and does not address error scenarios. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters clearly: playlist is 'the name of the playlist to export' and format lists the allowed values 'json', 'csv', or 'markdown' with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export all tracks in a named playlist to JSON, CSV, or Markdown' with a specific verb and resource, and the format options distinguish it from sibling tools like itunes_get_playlist_tracks which would simply retrieve tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists parameters, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison to related tools like itunes_get_playlist_tracks or itunes_add_to_playlist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 does not state whether this is read-only, whether it relies on an external AI service, or what side effects or costs might occur. The phrase 'AI analytical breakdown' hints at computation but lacks concrete behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs useful specificity into a compact form. Every phrase adds meaning: 'AI analytical breakdown' plus the four listed analysis areas, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (zero parameters), but there is no output schema and no annotation context. The description gives a good high-level sense of the output but omits details like return format, whether it is a synchronous report, or how the AI breakdown is delivered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. This matches the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('AI analytical breakdown') and names concrete content areas: listening habits, signature artists, peak listening hours, and skip patterns. This clearly distinguishes it from raw-data siblings like itunes_get_listening_history or itunes_get_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related listening-stat tools. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it describe what happens if no track is playing or whether it returns null or errors. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential information without any waste. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning the highest score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about return format, error behavior (e.g., when no track is playing), and whether any permissions are required. An agent could use it correctly in a happy path but lacks guidance for edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the interface. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no additional parameter semantics are required. The baseline of 4 is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'elapsed time and total duration for the currently playing track.' It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like itunes_seek (which changes position) and itunes_current_track (which gets track info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to use it or when not to. For example, it doesn't mention that itunes_seek should be used for changing position, nor does it mention any prerequisites like having a track playing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool moves a playlist into a folder but does not disclose side effects (e.g., removal from current location), requirements (folder must exist), or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: one clear action sentence followed by a minimal arg list. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters, the core action and params are covered. However, it lacks behavioral context (prerequisites, side effects) and no output schema exists, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking this mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'playlist' and 'folder' are both defined as names. This adds meaningful clarity beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('existing playlist into a playlist folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_playlist_track or create_playlist_folder by specifying the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not reveal edge cases (e.g., behavior at end of playlist, whether it stops playback, or if it requires a current track). There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist, but the lack of detail is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it immediately clear and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple control action, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., must have a current track) or side effects (e.g., does it interrupt playback?). Without annotations or an output schema, the description could be richer, but given the extreme simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and since there are no parameters to describe, the description adds no parameter information but also does not need to. It is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Skip to the next track.' uses a specific verb ('skip') and a clear resource ('next track'), unambiguously distinguishing it from siblings like 'itunes_previous' (previous track) and 'itunes_play' (play/pause). It precisely communicates the action without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the action is self-evident from the name, the description does not mention any context such as 'use when you want to advance' or conditions (e.g., requires a current track).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'Open and stream' without detailing side effects (e.g., replacing current playback), error handling, or prerequisites. It does not add context beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in the second. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context on when to prefer this over other playback tools and doesn't mention potential effects on current playback or return behavior, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful value for the `url` parameter by specifying accepted formats: 'http://', 'https://', or 'music://'. This goes beyond the schema's bare type definition and helps the agent understand what input is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Open and stream an audio stream URL or Apple Music link directly.' It specifies the action (open and stream) and the resource (audio stream URL or Apple Music link), making it distinct from siblings that play songs or control playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like itunes_play or itunes_play_song. The description only implies usage when a direct URL is available, but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or compare with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the behavioral explanation. It states the primary effect—starting playback—but it does not disclose behavior when playback is already active, whether it resumes the current track, or what the return state is. This is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, uses an active verb, and includes just enough context about the target application. There is no verbosity or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter play command, the description is largely sufficient. It supplies the basic operation and the target app. It could be more complete by noting that it starts the current playback context or requires a track to be present, but the current content is enough in most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description does not need to clarify parameter formats. The baseline score of 4 for no parameters applies because there is nothing else for the description to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start playback in Music (iTunes)' clearly names the action. It is not explicit about how it differs from the sibling itunes_play_song, but the zero-parameter schema plus general 'start playback' wording make the core purpose understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use itunes_play versus itunes_play_song, itunes_pause, or itunes_next. The description does not mention context such as resuming paused playback or starting the default queue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and lists example presets, omitting whether the change is global, requires playback, persists, or returns any confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact Args block. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter, the description is minimally viable: it states the purpose and gives example values. However, with no annotations or output schema, it leaves gaps around error behavior, persistence, and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only a string preset with default 'Off' and no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by naming the parameter and giving example values, but it does not provide an exhaustive list or validation constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource 'Apple Music Equalizer (EQ) preset', making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like itunes_set_volume and itunes_set_shuffle_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the action 'Set Apple Music Equalizer (EQ) preset', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions are stated, but the tool is self-explanatory among the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify the toggle behavior (True to favorite/love, False to unfavorite) and implies a state dependency on the currently playing track. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when no track is playing, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error/edge-case behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences in a clean, front-loaded docstring format. Every word serves a purpose. The Args section is concise and directly follows the one-line summary. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single boolean parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential semantics. However, given the tool's dependency on mutable global state ('currently playing track') and the presence of 70+ siblings, a note about edge cases (e.g., nothing playing, or distinguishing from itunes_favorite_song) would push this to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explicitly explaining the meaning of both the True and False values of the 'favorited' boolean ('True to favorite/love the track, False to unfavorite'). This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs beyond the bare 'boolean' type in the schema, and it's communicated unambiguously.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Favorite or unfavorite the currently playing track') that clearly states the action and scope. It clearly differentiates from most siblings like itunes_rate_track and itunes_dislike_track, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the near-identical itunes_favorite_song sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. Given the existence of itunes_favorite_song in the sibling list, explicit guidance on when to use which would be valuable. The description assumes the agent knows when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the output format ("newline-separated list ... formatted as 'Track Name - Artist'"), which is genuinely useful behavioral info. However, it remains silent on edge cases like empty playlists or non-existent playlists, which a getter tool could reasonably be expected to handle.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a one-line purpose followed by standard Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place, and the format is scannable, though the docstring style is slightly verbose for a single parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter tool with one string parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what it takes as input and the exact format of the return value. There's little ambiguity in what the tool offers, making it appropriately complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description coverage for the single `playlist` parameter, so the burden falls on the description. The Args section compensates by documenting it as "The name of the playlist to inspect." This is exactly the kind of compensation the rubric calls for, though it lacks examples or default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening line "Get all tracks in a named playlist" uses a clear verb (Get) with a specific resource (tracks in a named playlist). It clearly describes the action but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like itunes_export_playlist or itunes_get_track_metadata, so a point is lost for missing sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the structure ("Get all tracks in a named playlist") and the Args section, and the name `playlist` suggests the prerequisite of having a playlist name. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions pointing to alternatives like itunes_list_playlists or itunes_export_playlist, so the usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns station title and URL, but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be currently playing a live stream), or error conditions. It adds some context beyond the schema but is not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Get live stream station title and URL', and includes the specific context. No wasted words; it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple getter. However, it could mention that it only works when a live stream is active, and what happens if not (e.g., returns null or error). The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more behavioral detail, but it is adequate for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and when it applies, which is valuable since there are no parameters to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves live stream station title and URL for live/internet radio or Apple Music 1. It specifies the resource (stream info) and the context (when listening to live radio), distinguishing it from other iTunes tools like current track or search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when listening to live/internet radio or Apple Music 1, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., whether it impacts system volume, if it toggles or sets state, or any persistence). This is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for the argument. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single boolean parameter), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. It lacks any note on side effects or when to use, but for a mute function, it may be adequate; however, it could mention that it applies to Apple Music playback only, which is already stated. It is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains the 'muted' parameter: True to mute, False to unmute, adding clarity beyond the raw schema type. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description is essential and effective.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: muting or unmuting Apple Music audio playback. It uses a specific verb (mute/unmute) and targets a specific resource (Apple Music audio playback), distinguishing it from volume control tools like itunes_set_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as itunes_set_volume or itunes_set_device_volume. It implies usage for muting but does not explain exclusions or preferability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the volume range. It implies a write operation via 'Set' but does not explain persistence, whether it affects system volume, or any error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameter constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It clarifies the target ('Music app volume') and the valid range. However, it could benefit from noting the contrast with related volume tools to prevent misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single integer 'volume' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds the critical range (0-100), which is essential for correct invocation, but does not elaborate on the meaning beyond the range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('Music app volume') with an explicit range (0-100). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_set_device_volume and itunes_set_track_volume_adjustment, which target different volume scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like itunes_set_device_volume or itunes_mute. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without explicit contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior beyond the obvious read-only nature. It does add the return format (newline-separated) and track counts, which is helpful, but it does not mention sorting order, whether it includes smart playlists or folders, or any potential side effects (unlikely). It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: two sentences that state the purpose and return format. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant detail. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the description covers the essential information: what it lists, the format, and that it returns track counts. The lack of an output schema is offset by the explicit description of the return format. However, it could have clarified whether it includes folders or smart playlists, but that's a minor gap for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the baseline, with 0 params, score 4 is appropriate. The description could add context like whether it includes all playlists from all sources, but its absence isn't a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all playlists in the Music library with their track counts. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like itunes_get_playlist_tracks (which gets tracks within a playlist) and itunes_create_playlist, though it doesn't explicitly mention filtering or exceptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a read-only listing operation with no parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like itunes_search or itunes_get_playlist_tracks. It provides no guidance on context or exclusions, only a basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as a manual, immediate log/write, but it does not state what happens if no track is currently playing, whether repeated calls create duplicate journal entries, or what success/failure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with a front-loaded verb and no redundant wording. Every word earns its place by specifying action, target, source, and timing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless mutation, the description covers the core action, target, and immediacy. However, it omits failure conditions, duplicate-entry behavior, and confirmation of completion, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter details to add. The description's mention of 'currently playing' correctly indicates the implicit state the action depends on, satisfying the baseline for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('log') and names the resource ('listening journal'), while also clarifying the target is the 'currently playing track' and that logging is manual and immediate. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like itunes_get_listening_history and itunes_current_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage scenario: when the user wants to manually record the current track into the listening journal. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives such as automatic logging or reading history via itunes_get_listening_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that 0 clears the rating, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or affects the current track's album. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence explains the parameter format. No redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (single param, no output schema). The description covers the essential usage and parameter semantics. However, it could mention what success looks like or whether it affects the currently playing album, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does: stars is an integer from 1 to 5, or 0 to clear. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema, which only defines it as an integer without range or semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: setting a star rating (1–5) for the album of the currently playing track. It distinguishes from the sibling itunes_rate_track by specifying 'album of the currently playing track', which disambiguates scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (must have a currently playing track) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like itunes_rate_track. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the mutation intent ('remove') without addressing side effects, error behavior (e.g., if song not found), ambiguity with duplicate track titles, or whether it removes all matching instances. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as the agent gets no insight into failure modes or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear Args section. There is no fluff, redundant information, or repetition of the tool name. It is minimal but efficient, earning its place with every sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic usage but omits important context for an agent: what happens on success (return value?), potential errors, and how ambiguous cases (multiple tracks with same title) are handled. It is adequate for straightforward operations but not fully complete for robust agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description supplements the bare input schema by explicitly explaining each parameter: 'song: The title of the song to remove' and 'playlist: The name of the playlist to remove it from.' Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description effectively compensates for the missing schema descriptions. It clarifies that both are required and specifies their meaning, though it doesn't detail match criteria (exact, case-sensitive).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove a track from a playlist by song title.' It specifies the verb (remove), resource (playlist), and object (track), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like itunes_add_to_playlist and itunes_move_playlist_track. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like itunes_move_playlist_track or itunes_delete_playlist. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, playlist must exist) or error handling. The purpose is clear, but no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The term 'Toggle' implies a state switch, but the argument description reveals it sets a specific mode (enabled=true/false). This inconsistency could mislead the agent about whether the action is a toggle or a setter. Additionally, no side effects, errors, or state changes are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a brief main statement and a clear parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary details or fluff, making it easy to parse and act upon.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter, and since no output schema is expected, a detailed return description is not necessary. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying the exact visual effect of MiniPlayer mode or any potential side effects, but overall it is sufficient for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'enabled' is clearly documented in the description: 'True to switch to MiniPlayer, False for standard full window.' This fully explains the meaning and effect of the boolean argument, leaving no ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it toggles the compact MiniPlayer window mode in the Music app. This is a specific, unambiguous action that differentiates it from sibling controls like play, pause, or volume control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus other iTunes controls. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this action would be appropriate, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 the action (set/update) but does not mention side effects, whether the playlist must exist, overwrite behavior, failure modes, or any permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a short Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the basic purpose is clear. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify result/error behavior (e.g., does it create the playlist if missing? what happens on failure?). This gap leaves the agent uncertain in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'playlist' as the name of the playlist and 'description' as the description text, adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles. It does not provide additional format constraints, but for two simple strings this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set or update the description text on a playlist.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools that create, delete, or list playlists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the description and name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_playlist or edit_track_metadata. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects, requirements, and result behavior, but it does not. It never states whether the offsets persist, if this modifies the file or only the current session, or what the function returns (e.g., success message). The only behavioral nuance (song fallback to currently playing track) is a small positive, but critical details like permissions, reversibility, and side effects on existing offsets are omitted. This mirrors the under-disclosed mutation pattern in update_drive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally tight: one defining sentence and a clean three-item list. Every word adds value, and the structure (purpose first, then parameter details) allows quick scanning. No fluff, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with only three optional parameters, the description covers the essential semantics well, including the special case for song. However, because there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned return behavior (e.g., whether it echoes success) or noted side effects like overwriting prior offset values. These are minor gaps for such a straightforward tool, so the description is complete enough for standard use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the reported 0% schema description coverage, the Args section explicitly explains each parameter's meaning and defaults: start is 'in seconds (0 for beginning)', finish is 'in seconds (0 for normal track end)', and song is 'Optional track title' with fallback to 'currently playing track'. This converts the bare schema (which only shows types and defaults) into actionable knowledge, fully compensating for any coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Set custom playback start and/or finish time offsets (in seconds) for a track.' This uses a precise verb ('Set') and resource ('custom playback start/finish offsets'), and the qualifier 'playback' distinguishes it from metadata-editing tools like itunes_edit_track_metadata. It fully captures the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as itunes_seek (for momentary position) or itunes_edit_track_metadata (for persistent track properties). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The usage context must be entirely inferred from the name and one-liner, which is inadequate for an agent navigating ~70 sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that an empty song means the currently playing track and that fields are optional, but it does not mention side effects, whether unspecified tags are left untouched, error behavior, or persistence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description opens with a one-sentence purpose and then lists each parameter in a compact Args block. It is concise, scannable, and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the input semantics and primary behavior. It lacks some operational details like confirmation or error behavior, but the tool's scope is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains all six parameters in plain language (e.g., 'New genre tag', 'Release year') despite the schema having no property descriptions. This effectively compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it adds no format or constraint details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Edit and update metadata tags on a track in your library,' clearly identifying the action and target resource. This differentiates it from sibling read/metadata tools like itunes_get_track_metadata and itunes_set_track_bpm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for modifying track metadata and notes that an empty song targets the currently playing track. However, it does not explicitly specify when to choose this over related metadata/set tools or any prerequisites/limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'fetch', but does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or output behavior. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a short purpose sentence followed by two parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fetch tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains both parameters and the purpose. However, it does not describe the output structure or mention that it returns a list of releases, which could be assumed but is not stated. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning to both parameters. For 'country', it gives examples like 'gb', 'us', 'ng', 'ca', and for 'limit' it specifies a default and maximum (25 and 100). This goes beyond the schema's basic type and default information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch Apple Music's latest official album and single releases by country.' The verb 'fetch' and resource 'latest official album and single releases' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like itunes_get_top_charts or itunes_get_artist_albums.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention any exclusions, comparisons to other iTunes tools, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description simply states what it does without context on usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the operation (move) and indexing, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., shifting of other tracks, error behavior for invalid indices). For a simple reorder, this is adequate, but it lacks explicit safety or error information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one main sentence and three parameter lines. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides necessary detail without waste. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (move operation, 3 params, no output schema). The description covers the fundamental action and parameter meanings. It does not mention error cases or reordering semantics, but for an experienced agent, this is sufficient. Given the simplicity, completeness is high.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must document parameters. It does so: playlist, from_index, to_index, each with a clear explanation (e.g., 'current 1-indexed position', 'target 1-indexed position'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it does not cover boundary conditions or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Move a track inside a playlist from one position to another'. It specifies the resource (playlist) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like sorting or removing tracks. The 1-indexed detail adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Related tools like itunes_sort_playlist or itunes_remove_from_playlist exist, but no comparisons or exclusions are mentioned. Usage context is only implied by the function name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the nuance that it plays the 'first matching track,' which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the name. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it stops current playback), error handling, or prerequisites such as device selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences totaling 16 words, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a key behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: what it does (searches and plays), the parameter meaning, and a critical behavioral detail (first match). It does not cover error or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of richer schemas, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the single parameter 'song' (0% coverage), so the description must clarify its meaning. It does so by stating 'a specific song by name,' indicating that the song parameter is a song title. This is clear, though it could specify acceptable formats (e.g., with or without artist).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search for and play a specific song by name.' It specifies the verb (search and play) and the resource (a specific song), and adds a distinctive behavior ('Plays the first matching track found in the library'), which helps differentiate it from related tools like itunes_search or itunes_play alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like itunes_search, itunes_play, or itunes_current_track. The use case is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the effect of each mode ('off', 'one', 'all') but does not mention persistence, side effects on current playback, or behavior when an invalid mode is passed. It adequately describes the core mutation but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one action sentence followed by a clear argument listing. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity—one simple parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling context—the description is mostly complete. It defines the action and all mode semantics, though adding the default value or noting optionality would make it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does this by enumerating all valid mode values with parenthetical explanations. However, it omits the default value ('all') already present in the schema and does not explicitly state that mode is optional, slightly reducing completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Set playback repeat mode.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like itunes_set_shuffle_mode by focusing specifically on repeat behavior, and the three mode values clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that itunes_set_shuffle_mode handles shuffle, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (sorting all tracks alphabetically by a chosen attribute), but it does not mention side effects such as whether the playlist order is permanently modified, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and parameters, but it lacks information about return values, error cases (e.g., playlist not found), and side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, this leaves some gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: playlist is 'the name of the playlist to sort' and sort_by is 'Attribute to sort by: title, artist, or album (default title).' This adds meaningful allowed values and default behavior beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Sort all tracks in a playlist alphabetically by title, artist, or album.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('all tracks') distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_move_playlist_track or itunes_get_playlist_tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—whenever a playlist needs sorting—but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a mutating action (favorite/unfavorite) and clarifies the effect of the 'favorited' parameter. It does not mention potential side effects or errors, but for a simple toggle it is sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's function without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is complete enough for a straightforward action. It could benefit from noting that the operation searches by title, but that is already implied. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the parameters: 'song' is identified as a title, and 'favorited' is implied to control the favorite/unfavorite action. This supplements the schema, which only provides types and names, making the parameters' roles clearer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: favoring or unfavoriting a song by title. It specifies the exact action and target object, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool compared to other iTunes tools (e.g., favorite_track, favorite_album). It does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or alternative approaches, so users may not know when this is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a search operation (presumably read-only) and notes the limit parameter's default and max, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, mention pagination, or describe the return format. Still, for a simple search, the behavior is largely inferable from the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a compact arg list. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, efficiently conveying the necessary information without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It might benefit from explicit usage guidance or a note about the return being a list of albums, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: artist is the name to search for, and limit is the number of albums with a default of 10 and max of 25. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could include more detail (e.g., case sensitivity or matching behavior).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Apple Music's global catalog') and object ('official albums by any artist'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from siblings like itunes_get_artist_top_tracks (tracks) and itunes_search (generic search) by focusing specifically on albums by an artist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving albums by an artist but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like itunes_get_artist_top_tracks or itunes_search_catalog. No exclusions or 'use this when' guidance is provided, though the purpose alone makes it fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds useful context: returns both plays and skips (not just plays), confirms the ordering is chronological, and mentions timestamps are included. However, it does not disclose authentication prerequisites, whether the history syncs from a cloud account, what 'recent' means in terms of time span, or pagination behavior beyond a simple limit parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One dense, information-rich sentence covers the tool's purpose, followed by a minimal, well-formatted Args block. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned (a journal log), the ordering (chronological), the content (plays and skips with timestamps), and the filter/limit semantics. A description of the return value format is not strictly necessary here given the tool's simplicity, so this does not detract from completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it clarifies that 'limit' refers to the number of recent tracks and adds the constraint of a 100 max (which is not in the schema), and explicitly labels 'artist' as an optional filter. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles of 'Limit' and 'Artist', though the schema itself already provides default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Get a chronological journal log of recent music plays and skips with timestamps" uses a specific verb (get) and identifies a clear resource (listening history) with rich scoping detail (chronological, plays and skips, timestamps). This cleanly differentiates it from siblings like itunes_get_listening_personality and itunes_get_listening_stats_by_date, which sound related but are clearly different data products.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to retrieve listening history) but never explicitly names alternatives or gives exclusion criteria like "use get_listening_stats_by_date for aggregate stats instead." For such a simple history fetch tool, the implied usage is reasonably clear, but explicit differentiation from listening_stats_by_date and get_monthly_replay would have been helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'Get', but doesn't disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., empty selection, whether it returns metadata or just track names, or if it interacts with the current selected state). It adds context about 'selected/highlighted' which is useful, but for a simple get, the transparency is moderate—no hidden side effects are mentioned, but also no guarantees or caveats are stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly focused sentence. It uses no superfluous words, directly states the resource and scope, and is front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the primary functionality and scope. The only minor omissions are explicit mention of what happens when no tracks are selected or whether the returned list includes complete metadata, but these are unlikely to mislead an agent. It's complete enough for a straightforward read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is appropriate. It implicitly conveys that the operation is unconditional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a list of tracks'), and specifies the scope ('currently selected/highlighted by the user in the Music app window'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_current_track (which gets the playing track) and playlist-specific tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case (to retrieve the user's current selection in the Music app), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites. For instance, it doesn't state that it should be used before operations on selected tracks, nor does it clarify that it returns an empty list if nothing is selected. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, which is adequate but not fully developed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only list behavior and the fact that selection state is included. However, it doesn't disclose the response format, behavior when no AirPlay devices are available, or whether discovery can fail—moderately useful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One 12-word sentence that front-loads the verb, scopes the operation ('all available'), and includes the key return detail ('selection state'). Zero filler words or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the essential scope. It could add a pointer to itunes_set_device as the companion mutation tool or mention the output shape, but is otherwise essentially complete for a simple listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters; the rubric prescribes a baseline of 4. The description adds minor but real value by clarifying that 'devices' specifically means AirPlay audio output devices, not all audio devices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb ('List') with a resource ('AirPlay audio output devices') and reveals what's returned ('selection state'). Clearly distinguishable from the 60+ siblings, including the related, complementary itunes_set_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use (to enumerate output devices and check the current selection), but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use itunes_set_device to change the active device.' Adequate context, no edge-case guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a list formatted as "Track Name - Artist", which is helpful. It does not mention whether the search is read-only, case-sensitive, limited/paginated, or how it behaves when no tracks match, but the search action is reasonably inferable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and wastes no words. It states the purpose in the first sentence and the output format in the second, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, and the description provides both the search semantics and the output format, which is sufficient for most usage. It could be more complete with guidance about no-match behavior or the relationship to catalog search, but for the tool's low complexity this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only names the query field. The description compensates by explaining that the query is matched against track names via containment, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare input schema. It could give an example or formatting details, but the single-parameter case is well covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies a search over the Music library for tracks whose names match a query, and it specifies the return format as "Track Name - Artist". This distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_search_catalog by indicating a local-library search rather than a catalog search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: to find tracks in the Music Library by name. However, it does not explicitly rule out or compare against alternatives such as itunes_search_catalog or other browse-by-chart tools, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a formatted list of matching tracks, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the search is case-insensitive, how results are ordered, or any rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context (global scope, formatted output) but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. It's front-loaded with the key differentiator (global catalog).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameters, and return format. It's complete for a search tool of this complexity. The only minor gap is not specifying result ordering or pagination, but that's not critical for a simple search.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' as the search term (song title, artist, or album) and 'limit' as number of results with default and max. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, but it's minimal—no examples, no format details, no edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches the global Apple Music / iTunes Store catalog, distinguishing it from the sibling itunes_search which likely searches the user's local library. The verb 'Search' and resource 'global Apple Music / iTunes Store catalog' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes this searches outside the user library, which implies when to use it (for catalog-wide searches) versus alternatives like itunes_search (presumably for local library). However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or provide exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly surfaces the destructive action when remove=True (automatically removes duplicates) and clarifies that one copy is kept. It falls short of specifying what happens when remove=False (read-only scan or return format), but covers the main side effect, earning a solid score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences plus a minimal args list. It communicates the core action and the alternative behavior without fluff, and the info is front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-param tool, it covers the main action and the remove option, but it lacks any mention of the return value or what happens when remove=false (does it just scan and return a list?). Since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to state what the tool returns. Additionally, it doesn't mention any potential caveats (e.g., if the playlist is not found). So it's minimal but misses some behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'playlist' as the name to check and 'remove' as a check that triggers removal, adding meaning beyond type/boolean. While 'playlist' is merely restated, it conveys the parameter role, and the description for remove is clear about side effects. This improves upon the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scan a playlist for duplicate songs (sharing the exact same title & artist).' This is a specific verb+resource with a clear distinction from siblings like itunes_get_playlist_tracks or itunes_remove_from_playlist, making it easy to identify when to invoke.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for finding duplicates in a playlist, and the remove option hints at when modification is needed. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'remove_from_playlist' or 'merge_playlists'. It provides basic context but no explicit when-to-use/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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies that the search is against the global catalog and that results are top tracks with a configurable limit (default 10, max 25), but it does not disclose result format, error behavior, or authentication/rate-limit expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a compact two-item Args list. Every phrase adds useful information and is front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read/search tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the catalog scope, result type, and parameter constraints. It only lacks explicit mention of the return value shape, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining 'artist' as the name to search and 'limit' as the number of top tracks to return, including the default and max constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Apple Music's global catalog') and output ('top tracks by any artist'). This distinguishes it from siblings like itunes_get_artist_albums and itunes_get_top_charts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it should be used when the caller wants top tracks for a named artist, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling search/artist tools, an explicit pointer to e.g. itunes_search_catalog or itunes_get_artist_albums would strengthen this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions default date ranges for parameters, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only), permission requirements, or output format. Since it's clearly a query tool, the lack of explicit non-mutation statement is a minor gap but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence plus an 'Args' section, well-structured with formatting examples and defaults. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters, and the description covers both fully. However, there is no output schema, so the description does not specify the return structure (e.g., whether it's a list of artists/songs, counts, etc.). For a stats tool, stating the return shape would improve completeness, but the current description gives enough for an agent to expect aggregated data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides only names and types. The description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: start_date and end_date, with 'YYYY-MM-DD' format and defaults ('7 days ago' and 'today'). This adds crucial semantic meaning that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get aggregated listening statistics and top artists/songs for a custom date range.' This specifies the verb (Get), resource (listening statistics/top artists/songs), and scope (custom date range), distinguishing it from siblings like itunes_get_stats (likely broader) and itunes_get_listening_history (raw history vs aggregated).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description: it's for aggregated stats over a custom date range. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use it. Since there is no exclusion or pointer to related tools, the guidance is limited to implied context rather than explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the response. It only mentions parameter constraints (default/max for limit), which is minimal behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details listed succinctly. No redundant information or fluff; every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it fetches and how to call it. It lacks return format details or extra usage caveats, but given its simplicity, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention that it returns a list of songs or the response shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains country with examples and the concept of a two-letter code, and limit with its default and maximum. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, making both parameters clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches Apple Music's official Daily Top Charts by country, with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like itunes_get_new_releases and itunes_get_artist_top_tracks by focusing on top charts vs. other catalog queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use it (to get daily top charts for a country) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer when to select it, though explicit guidance about not using it for artist-specific or release-specific queries would be stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. It is sufficiently clear for a getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose and parameter behavior without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists the returned attributes, providing enough context for expected output, though no detailed output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'song' is well explained: optional track title, and behavior when empty (inspecting current track) is specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves technical audio quality information and lists specific attributes (bitrate, sample rate, BPM, etc.), distinguishing it from other getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stream_info or get_track_metadata; only the purpose is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'without any Spotify login' and 'reconstruct', hinting at creation/population of a playlist, but does not disclose side effects like whether it overwrites existing playlists, whether it requires Apple Music permissions, or if it modifies the current library state. It's minimal but not misleading. The description adds some value beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args section. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and then details parameters in a structured format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema needed, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core action and parameter details. It could mention edge cases (e.g., duplicate playlist names) but for a straightforward import, it's sufficient. Given the simplicity, a 4 is appropriate; a 5 would be for a more complex operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. playlist_url is described as a public Spotify URL with an example, and playlist_name is described as an optional custom name with a default behavior (defaults to Spotify playlist title). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the raw type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Import and reconstruct a public Spotify playlist or album into Apple Music'. It specifies the source (Spotify) and destination (Apple Music), and distinguishes itself from siblings by the unique Spotify import capability. No ambiguity about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to import from Spotify) and notes that no Spotify login is required, which is a helpful condition. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., itunes_create_playlist) or state exclusions. The context is clear but there's no explicit 'use this when' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the important behavior of searching across all user playlists (not just Library), selecting the first match, and returning status or an error. It could mention mutation side effects or duplicate handling, but it still gives a solid behavioral picture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise rationale paragraph, then structured Args/Returns sections. Every element earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is complete enough: it states the search scope, the selection rule, and the return behavior. Missing details like playlist creation or duplicate handling are not critical given the low complexity, but could add slight confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'song' as 'The song title to search for' and 'playlist' as 'The name of the destination playlist,' which is basic but helpful. The narrative adds 'first match' behavior, but parameter docs remain minimal and don't mention matching behavior, case sensitivity, or optional qualifiers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for a song by title across all playlists and add the first match to the named playlist.' This clearly defines the tool's action and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like itunes_move_playlist_track, itunes_remove_from_playlist, or itunes_play_song.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when this tool is necessary: tracks may be sourced from Apple Music subscription or iCloud Music Library and not appear in the main Library. It gives context for choosing this tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 the output format (a formatted summary listing listening time, play count, etc.) and implies a read-only computation ('Generate'), but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or that no special permissions are required. For a report tool, this is adequate but not fully explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, an Args block that adds meaning beyond schema, and a Returns block that lists expected output fields. Every sentence adds value without fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return format. It does not mention edge cases like 'no listening data available', but such omissions are minor given the low tool complexity and the clarity of the report output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only property titles and defaults, with no descriptions. The description adds crucial meaning: year/month values, valid ranges (1-12 for month), and that 0 means 'use current'. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'Generate' with a specific resource ('Apple Music Replay listening report') and scope ('for a specific month and year'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like itunes_get_stats or itunes_get_listening_history, which serve different reporting purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys clear usage context: it generates a monthly/yearly replay report when the user wants listening summary data for a specific period. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is well-defined, so the usage intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or mention potential errors (e.g., if no track is playing). It does explain the default behavior when 'song' is empty, which is useful, but fails to note prerequisites or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a purpose sentence stating what metadata is inspected, and an Args sentence for the parameter. Both are concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists the main metadata fields and explains the parameter behavior, but could be more thorough by enumerating all returned fields or clarifying the return value format. Still, for a straightforward inspection tool, it meets the minimum bar.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the param. It does so effectively: 'song: Optional track title. If empty, inspects currently playing track.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb 'Inspect' and a clear resource 'metadata for a track', listing exact fields like genre, composer, comment, track/disc numbers, compilation, date added, unplayed. This distinguishes it from siblings like itunes_get_track_audio_info or itunes_get_lyrics, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on how to use the tool, including the optional 'song' parameter and the fallback to the currently playing track when empty. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives, but the listed fields imply its scope, which is sufficient for a read-only metadata tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The parenthetical '(skipping duplicate songs)' is a genuinely valuable behavioral disclosure—it tells the user that output is deduplicated, not error-prone. With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and passes, but it stops short of revealing side effects (e.g., whether playlists are validated to exist, whether a missing playlist creates a new one, or if the master playlist is created in iCloud vs local).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally lean: one sentence of behavior followed by a three-line Args block that adds zero fluff. Every word earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity—only 3 string parameters, no output schema, no enums—the description is nearly sufficient on its own. It captures inputs, the merge behavior, the dedupe rule, and the target output. A small gap remains around error handling (e.g., what if playlists are identical or empty?), but for a simple function the bar is met and slightly exceeded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (parameters are only typed strings), so the description's Args block must compensate. It does, by defining each parameter's role: 'First source playlist,' 'Second source playlist,' and 'Target master playlist name.' This disambiguates the two sources from the output exactly when it matters—though it mostly restates what the identifiers already imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence states a specific verb, resource, and output: 'Merge tracks from two playlists into a new master playlist (skipping duplicate songs).' It immediately differentiates the tool from siblings—no other sibling natively merges two playlists—while disclosing the dedupe behavior up front.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly scopes the use case: merge exactly two playlists into a new one, with the word 'new' implying originals are untouched. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use this tool or names a fallback alternative (e.g., copy-with-add-to-playlist for single-playlist duplication), leaving some ambiguity about edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that playback is paused, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens if playback is already paused or whether any confirmation is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence: 'Pause playback in Music (iTunes).' It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument, no-output-schema control tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and the action. It does not cover edge cases like already-paused state or result behavior, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Pause playback in Music (iTunes).' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like itunes_play, itunes_next, and itunes_previous by naming the exact action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use when you need to pause playback. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the action is unambiguous and there is no competing pause tool among the siblings, so no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('switch audio output') but does not mention potential side effects, error cases (e.g., device not found), reversibility, or any required state. For a simple switching tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral nuances unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and parameter meaning. Zero fluff, every word contributes value. It's exemplary in conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and parameter. It could optionally mention that device names come from list_devices or that the tool requires the device to be available, but it's largely complete for its simplicity. Slight gap in failure-mode context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (parameter only has a title 'Device Name' with no description). The tool description adds 'The exact name of the AirPlay device' and provides examples, which clarifies that the name must be exact and how to identify valid values. This compensates for the lack of schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Switch audio output to a specific AirPlay device by name') with specific examples (HomePod, AirPods, TV). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_volume (adjust volume) and list_devices (list devices), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you want to set the audio output device by name. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but within the context of sibling tools (e.g., list_devices to find names), it provides enough clarity. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It communicates the core mutation (setting volume), the range, and the need for an exact device name. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid device names, out-of-range volume values, or whether the device must be currently active/known, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single sentence states the purpose and scope, followed by a clear Args list. Every line adds value with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with only two parameters and no output schema, this is reasonably complete. It covers the action, parameter range, and exact device-name requirement. It falls short of a 5 by not mentioning how to discover device names or what happens on invalid input, but those are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for parameter descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining that device_name must be the exact AirPlay device name and that volume is 0–100. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the plain schema property titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: setting individual volume (0-100) for a particular AirPlay output device. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling itunes_set_volume by emphasizing 'individual' and 'specific AirPlay output device.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a specific AirPlay output device' clearly indicates when to use this tool — when adjusting volume for one device rather than the global volume. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (trimming ends/starts of tracks) and lists defaults, but it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing trims, whether the operation is reversible, or potential impact if crossfade_seconds exceeds track length. The phrase 'intelligent DJ' is vague and could mislead about automation logic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted list of arguments. Every line adds value, with no filler. The arg list is directly aligned with the schema parameters, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and parameters adequately. However, it lacks preconditions (e.g., playlist must exist) and details on how 'intelligent' offsets are computed, which could be relevant for an agent. Given it's a mutation with no annotations, a bit more context on side effects would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description compensates with a clear 'Args' section explaining each parameter and its default (e.g., crossfade_seconds trims end, trim_intro trims start). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults, fully covering all three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Apply intelligent DJ start/finish trim offsets across a playlist for radio-style seamless crossfades.' It specifies the verb (apply), the resource (playlist), and the intended effect (crossfades). This distinguishes it from siblings like itunes_set_track_start_finish which handles single tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it's for applying trim offsets across a playlist for crossfades. This implies it's for bulk processing, distinguishing it from single-track trimming tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it uses the currently playing track if 'song' is empty, which implies reading current state. However, it does not mention return format, potential network dependencies, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences that clearly state purpose and parameter usage without superfluous details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers the main functionality and usage. It omits specifics about the returned link (e.g., format), but that may be obvious to the user, and no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning to the 'song' parameter by specifying acceptable formats ('Title' or 'Title Artist') and the behavior when empty, which the schema alone does not convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool generates a universal share link for songs, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on playback control, playlist management, and other iTunes functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides context for when to use (sharing to friends on Spotify/Tidal) and explains the optional 'song' parameter behavior. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the unique purpose among siblings makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the default behavior (falling back to the currently playing track when 'song' is empty), which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it describe what happens if no artwork is attached, error conditions, or the structure of the returned info. These omissions leave the agent with incomplete transparency about the tool's runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear 'Args' section. It front-loads the core functionality and then provides parameter details in a structured format. There is no redundant or filler content; every word adds value. This is a model of efficient description writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-like operation, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does and how the parameter works. It lacks explicit details about the return format or possible failure modes (e.g., no artwork found), which would improve completeness. However, because the tool is straightforward and the purpose is clear, a 4 is appropriate; the description is not incomplete enough to warrant a 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning to the 'song' parameter beyond the schema. The schema only defines it as a string with a default of '', but the description explains that an empty value triggers inspection of the current track. This context is essential for correct invocation and is not derivable from the schema alone. Since there is exactly one parameter and it is fully explained, the parameter semantics are excellent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and the specific resource ('attached album artwork for a track'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_get_track_metadata or itunes_get_lyrics, which target different data types. The verb+resource combination is precise and directly maps to the tool's name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: the 'song' parameter is optional, and if left empty, the tool inspects the currently playing track. This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to invoke it with or without a specific track. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior at the start of a playlist) or side effects. Adequate for a simple control but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the extreme simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does. There is nothing missing for an effective call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb-resource pair ('return to previous track'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like itunes_next or itunes_seek.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of use is clear (when you want to go to the previous track), but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. Given the simplicity, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (reveal and highlight) and the special case of an empty parameter. No side effects are mentioned, but for a simple UI action this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with no unnecessary information or repetition. Two sentences cover the essential aspects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and special case. It lacks explicit mention of side effects or return values, but these are not critical for such a simple action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains the 'song' parameter: it is an optional track title, and if empty, reveals the currently playing track. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (reveal and highlight) and the resource (track in the main Music app window). It distinguishes from sibling tools like play, pause, or search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to reveal a track in the UI) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide context on when to prefer this over other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation (seek/jump) and the target (current track), but does not mention edge cases such as behavior if no track is playing, whether seeking pauses playback, or what happens if seconds exceeds the track length. These gaps are notable but the core behavior is still clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a parameter list, with the main action front-loaded. No filler words; every line earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and straightforward nature of the action, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens without a currently playing track, but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds essential meaning: 'seconds: Position in seconds from the start of the song.' This fully explains the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's bare integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Seek/jump to a specific timestamp in seconds in the currently playing track.' It precisely states the action and target, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like itunes_get_position (read position) or itunes_play (start playback).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you want to jump to a timestamp in the current track, and the 'currently playing' qualifier provides useful context. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple control action this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 and does so well. It explicitly discloses that this is a state-changing operation (mark/un-mark), clarifies both states of the 'disliked' flag, and applies only to the currently playing track. It doesn't address error conditions or idempotency, but for a simple boolean setter, this is solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly-constructed sentences cover the tool's purpose and parameter semantics without a single wasted word. The Args section is a clean, minimal format that informs an agent at a glance. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-boolean-parameter tool with no complex output, this description covers the essentials: what it does, on what scope, for what impact, and how the parameter maps to behavior. Minor gaps include no note on error states (e.g., no track currently playing) or reversibility, but for a tool this simple, the description is near-complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must fully explain the 'disliked' parameter, and it does. 'True to dislike/ban the track, False to remove dislike' adds crucial semantic weight — including the 'ban' synonym — that the bare boolean schema field 'Disliked' completely lacks. The description perfectly compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Mark or un-mark the currently playing track as Disliked' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like itunes_favorite_track and itunes_rate_track. The purpose ('for recommendation algorithms') adds valuable context about the tool's effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear scope by stating it operates on the 'currently playing track' and clarifies the functional effect ('for recommendation algorithms'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like itunes_favorite_track, and there's no mention of preconditions (e.g., what happens if no track is playing). Clear context, but no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: embedded library lyrics are tried first, with an instant fallback to a global lyrics database. It does not mention error behavior or return format, but the core lookup behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a useful behavioral note and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and fallback logic. It does not explain what happens when no lyrics are found, but the core functionality is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines an optional string with a default. The description adds crucial semantics: the parameter accepts a title or 'Title Artist' format, is optional, and empty means use the currently playing track. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets lyrics for the currently playing track or for a specified song by title/artist. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_search or itunes_get_track_metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: use it for lyrics, with an optional song parameter, and fall back to the currently playing track when empty. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 the key behavior: setting a rating from 1 to 5, and clearing it with 0. It does not state error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., that a track must be playing), but for a simple rating tool this is reasonable. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, with the parameter explanation neatly placed. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the parameter semantics, and the clearing behavior. It lacks details about error handling or the requirement that a track is playing, but these are minor for a simple rating operation. The overall completeness is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it defines the valid integer range (1–5) and the special value 0 to clear the rating. The schema alone only says 'integer,' so this is essential information that helps the agent select the correct value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a star rating') and the target ('the currently playing track'). It distinguishes from siblings like itunes_rate_album and itunes_favorite_track by scoping to the current track. The verb 'set' and resource 'rating' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies 'for the currently playing track,' which clearly scopes when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., itunes_rate_album for albums). Thus it provides clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: if 'song' is empty, it modifies the currently playing track. This is essential for an agent to understand default behavior. It could further mention side effects like overwriting existing BPM, but for a simple setter this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, followed by a neatly formatted 'Args:' section. Every sentence provides useful information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what parameters control, and the default behavior. It doesn't mention return values, but that's typically unnecessary for such a tool. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite only 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'bpm' with an example (120, 140) and 'song' with its optionality and default action. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set Beats Per Minute (BPM) tempo on a track.' The verb 'Set' plus the resource 'track' and attribute 'BPM' makes it specific. It distinguishes from siblings like itunes_edit_track_metadata by targeting a single attribute, and it also specifies the default behavior when song is empty.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by explaining the optional 'song' parameter and its fallback to the currently playing track. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, the targeted nature of the operation (setting BPM) makes its use case clear. There is no explicit exclusion, but the purpose is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it states the operation is a relative volume adjustment, constrains it to -100% to +100%, and explains the fallback behavior when song is empty ('modifies currently playing track'). It could mention error cases or persistence, but for a simple setter this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a short Args section that earns its place by adding meaning beyond the bare schema. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context: action, target, valid range, and optional song fallback. It stops short of covering edge cases like invalid track names or whether the change persists, but those are not essential for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains both parameters: adjustment's valid range (-100 to 100 percent) and song's optionality plus default behavior. It even supplies range constraints that the input schema lacks (no minimum/maximum on adjustment).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set relative volume adjustment' for 'track gain normalization.' It clearly identifies what is modified and the -100% to +100% range, distinguishing it from sibling volume tools like itunes_set_volume and itunes_set_device_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for track gain normalization' and the optional song parameter give clear context about when to use this tool: to adjust a track's relative gain, either by title or on the currently playing track. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/suleyman416/mcp-applemusic'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server