list_playlists

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 does disclose a useful precondition (scan_inventory if the database is empty), which adds context beyond the schema. But it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, or mention any other behavioral details such as formatting or side effects. The guidance is helpful but minimal.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence directly stating the tool's purpose and the second adding an actionable tip. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 is simple and the output schema covers return values, but the description leaves gaps in parameter semantics and alternative selection. The scan_inventory precondition is useful, but an agent would still struggle to understand the purpose of db_path without additional documentation. For a tool with one parameter and multiple siblings, this is moderately complete but not fully sufficient.

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 schema coverage for the only parameter (db_path) is 0%, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, and the description mentions 'inventory database', but it does not clarify whether db_path is optional or how it affects the query. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 function with a specific verb 'List' and a resource 'all playlists', and further specifies the scope as 'inventory database'. This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_playlist_contents (which lists contents) and find_empty_playlists (which filters playlists).

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 a concrete usage condition: 'Run scan_inventory() first if the database is empty.' This is genuine guidance for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or situations where the tool should not be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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