maintenance_digest

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 clarify that the result is a summary containing tracks, bad reviews, and suggested actions, implying a read-only digest. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, whether authentication is required, or how the data is sourced.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the tool's purpose. The main subject is front-loaded, and the listed contents are compact.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not describe the return shape, define what 'tracks' means in this context, explain the role of packageName, or clarify how suggested actions are represented. An agent could guess the basic call but would lack important invocation and interpretation context.

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 has one parameter, packageName, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory in most contexts, but the description adds no explicit meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 identifies the tool as a maintenance summary and lists its contents (tracks, bad reviews, suggested actions), making the general purpose clear. It lacks a direct verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', but the noun phrase 'Resumo de manutenção' still distinguishes it from siblings such as play_list_reviews or play_status.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives like play_list_reviews, play_status, or permissions_whoami. The word 'manutenção' weakly implies a health-check use case, but no explicit context, conditions, or exclusions are stated.

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