list_play_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the operation is read-only and non-persisting, requires login, and notes a UI quirk (tab hidden when status is No Status). It stops short of describing pagination or timing behavior, but covers the key safety and auth traits.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The read-only framing leads, and each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and behavior is reasonably covered. However, with three undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no note on the required slug or the wait_ms timing semantics, the definition is only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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?

All three parameters (slug, wait_ms, collection_id) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. slug is required and wait_ms/collection_id have defaults, but an agent gets no meaning for any of them from either source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a 'Read-only dump of Play Records categories and Add new category options.' The read-only nature distinguishes it from mutation siblings like set_play_record_category, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Read-only' and 'Does not save' implicitly signal when to prefer this over the set_*/remove_* siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction. Usage must be inferred from the framing.

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