get_song_quality

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the return format (JSON string listing qualities) and defines each quality type (m4a, 128, 320, flac, ape, hires, atmos). However, it does not mention error behavior, empty results, or any permission/membership requirements for high-quality formats.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line main purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. The quality type enumeration adds valuable context without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return value semantics thoroughly, including the quality type lexicon. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe the return structure. It only omits edge-case behavior like invalid song_mid or empty list.

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 schema provides no description for song_mid (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating 'song_mid: 歌曲的 MID 标识符' (song's MID identifier), which is key semantic information. It lacks a format example but is sufficient for this simple parameter.

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 states a specific verb '获取' (get) and a clear resource: '歌曲可用的音质列表' (song's available quality list). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_song_url and get_batch_song_urls, which deal with actual URLs rather than quality options.

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need the available audio quality list for a song, given a song_mid. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use get_song_url to obtain the actual playback URL'.

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