refresh_setlist_cache

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: retries with backoff against setlist.fm failures, records failed pages instead of aborting, requires SETLISTFM_API_KEY, caches locally as JSON, and returns a summary dict rather than the setlists themselves. These details go well beyond the basic function.

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-organized: a front-loaded purpose statement, a robustness note, an args section, and a returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the length is proportional to the tool's complexity. No fluff 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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description addresses all essential aspects: purpose, side effects, parameter details, failure behavior, and return value. It even clarifies that the return is a summary, not the setlists, which is important given the tool's name. The description is complete for successful agent invocation without further assumptions.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role: artist_mbid (MusicBrainz ID, defaults to King Crimson), max_pages (safety cap with 20 shows/page), max_retries (per page on transient errors), and force (re-fetch even if cache exists). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's simple names and defaults.

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's purpose: fetch an artist's complete concert history from setlist.fm and cache it locally as JSON for instant/offline analysis. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the data source and cache target, and adds context about when it's needed (rarely, since King Crimson's history is fixed).

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 provides context for when to use the tool ('so song/tour analysis runs instantly and offline') and notes that it 'rarely needs re-running' due to the band ending in 2021. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling cache-refresh tools (e.g., refresh_live_releases_cache) or when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit exclusions.

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