list_my_playlists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Requires sign-in,' which is a minimal behavioral note. It does not disclose pagination behavior, whether the list is ordered, whether it includes only public playlists or also private ones, or any side effects. For a read-only listing tool, the lack of behavioral context beyond sign-in is a notable gap.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the sign-in requirement is stated efficiently. It earns a 4 for being concise and clear, though it could add a bit more useful context without becoming bloated.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a partially documented parameter, the description is incomplete. An agent would not know what the response looks like, how pagination works, or what page_token means. For a simple listing tool, this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any return-format or pagination guidance makes it insufficient for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: max_results has a description ('1-50') but page_token has none. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With 50% coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented page_token, but it does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers half the parameters, but the gap remains.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the signed-in account's own playlists'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_videos or get_playlist_items. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate.

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 implies usage context: it requires sign-in and is for the signed-in account's own playlists. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_playlist_items or list_my_subscriptions, nor does it mention exclusions. The sign-in requirement is a useful contextual cue but not a full usage guideline.

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