Get Docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully warns that the return is 'one big text', hinting at payload size, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only/side-effect free or whether the content is static or server-version dependent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that front-loads what the tool returns and adds the one caveat that matters ('one big text'). Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema already present, the description covers what the agent needs: what comes back and that it is large. A note that it should be consulted before first use of the other tools would make it complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource ('usage guide for every tool of this server') and states its form ('one big text'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the music-playback siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is obvious from the text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'usage guide for every tool' implies the agent should call it to learn how to use the server's tools, but it never says when to call it (e.g., first, or when unsure) or that alternatives exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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