song_box_sets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the data source (Discogs), the dependency on a cache refresh, the matching modes ('exact' vs 'contains'), and the return details including how many times the song appears. This is rich behavioral context beyond just 'this lists box sets.'

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-structured with clear sections for purpose, complementary usage, prerequisites, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value: the example, the cache instruction, the match semantics, and the return fields. It is concise for the amount of guidance provided, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers all of these gaps: it documents every parameter, describes the return structure (title, year, format, Discogs URL, occurrence count), and gives the necessary cache-refresh prerequisite. In the context of the sibling tool list, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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. It explains each parameter with examples and semantics: song ('Song title (e.g. "Red")'), artist_mbid ('MusicBrainz artist MBID (cache key). Defaults to King Crimson'), and match ('exact (case-insensitive full track title) or contains'). This gives the agent everything needed to set parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'List King Crimson box sets / compilations that contain a given song (from Discogs).' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool song_live_releases, stating that this tool covers multi-show box sets and comps, while the other maps single-show live albums. This is a clear, well-scoped purpose statement.

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 explicitly names the complementary tool song_live_releases and explains the division of labor: 'that tool maps single-show live albums to eras; this one covers the multi-show box sets and comps that date-matching can't resolve.' It also states a required prerequisite: 'Run refresh_box_sets_cache first.' This gives an agent explicit when-to-use and operational context.

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