als_find_unfinished

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description reinforces that the tool is offline and non-destructive. It adds specific behavioral details about the checks performed (no master limiter, empty tracks, etc.), which provides useful context beyond the annotations.

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 very concise at two sentences, with the purpose and key checks front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, readOnly annotation, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, specific checks, and that it returns machine-readable issues. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 single parameter 'path' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter, such as file format constraints or whether relative paths are acceptable. The meaning is only inferred from the tool name and usage context.

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 tool lints a saved .als file for likely-unfinished work, listing specific checks (no master limiter, MIDI track without instrument, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling als_ tools by focusing on identifying unfinished work before rendering.

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 before rendering by mentioning 'returns machine-readable issues so an agent can decide what to fix before rendering.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance 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.