get_batch_song_urls

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 return type (JSON string) and input format, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, partial success behavior for invalid MIDs, authentication requirements, or potential rate limits, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for a batch operation.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a concise summary, Args section, and Returns section. Every line delivers essential information (parameter syntax, quality options, return format) without unnecessary text or repetition.

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

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

For a tool with two parameters and a simple return, the description covers all necessary invocation details: how to provide mids, quality choices, and the response format. It lacks information on failure modes or edge cases (e.g., what happens if a MID is invalid), but it is adequate for a straightforward batch URL fetcher.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: mids is comma-separated and quality has a full enum with human-readable meanings (e.g., 128 as 128kbps MP3, hires as 臻品母带). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which only lists enum values without explanations.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('批量获取' - batch get), the resource ('播放链接' - playback URLs), and the scope (multiple songs). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_song_url by emphasizing batch operation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description conveys the tool is for fetching multiple song URLs at once (批量), which implies it should be used when you need several links in one call, whereas single-link retrieval would use get_song_url. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases.

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