playlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning 'Quota cost is 1 unit,' which informs about resource usage. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with pagination (implied by 'token' parameters). This partial disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing quota information. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and quota cost, but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, and error handling. Without an output schema, the agent is left uncertain about return values. This makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage nuances. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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: 'Get playlist details and video listing.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('playlist details and video listing'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'channel_playlists' or 'related_videos_or_playlists', which might also involve playlists, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a quota cost, but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'channel_playlists' or 'related_videos_or_playlists'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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