track_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions what information is included ('sample_filenames') but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, error handling on invalid track_index, or any side effects.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear 'Args' format. 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 no output schema, the description should list the fields in 'detailed info', but only mentions 'sample_filenames' and defers to another tool. Missing key return data makes the description incomplete for tool selection.

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 only defines 'track_index' as an integer, but the description adds crucial context: '0-based track index'. This clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema, which had 0% description coverage.

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 'Get detailed info for one track' and distinguishes itself from 'track_get_all' by mentioning it includes 'sample_filenames'. It specifies the action and resource, making the purpose 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 references 'track_get_all' for understanding 'sample_filenames', hinting at an alternative tool, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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