soundcloud_playlist

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 does add value beyond the name: it says the data is public, sourced from SoundCloud's own JSON API, and that the full track list is returned. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, potential truncation/pagination for very large playlists, or failure modes, which a retrieval tool of this kind should hint at.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, the specific return fields follow, and the source/accessibility note ('Public data sourced from SoundCloud's own JSON API') earns its place by conveying authenticity and access assumptions. Efficient and well ordered.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is close to complete: it names the input URL and enumerates the return content (owner, counts, track list with title/artwork/playback/likes). The only gaps are minor operational details like rate limits or whether very large playlists are paginated, which are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description is not required to compensate. The tool description does reinforce that the URL is for a playlist or album, matching the schema's 'playlist/album URL (a playlist's permalink_url)' definition, but it adds no additional syntax, format acceptable, or example. The schema already does the work.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a SoundCloud playlist or album's detail') and specifies the return payload: metadata plus full track list with owner, likes/reposts counts, and per-track title, artwork, playback/likes counts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like soundcloud_track and soundcloud_search by scoping to playlists/albums, but it never explicitly names an alternative or contrasts scope, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

No tool contains explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not reference alternatives such as soundcloud_track, soundcloud_user_tracks, or soundcloud_search. The intended trigger is implied: you use this when you already have a playlist or album permalink URL, which is carried by the schema rather than the description. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer when the sibling lookup tools are the right choice.

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