spotify_get_track_progress_formatted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states that the tool returns formatted text but does not mention what happens when no track is playing, if authentication is needed, or any other edge cases. This lack of transparency 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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core purpose and result format. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value (formatted text) and a typical use case (HUD displays). However, it could be more complete by describing edge cases like absence of playback or error handling.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. It implicitly communicates that no arguments are required, which is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'current playback position', and the format 'formatted time (M:SS or H:MM:SS)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spotify_get_track_progress_ms by emphasizing the formatted output and the 'ONLY' keyword.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('perfect for HUD displays'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among similar sibling tools.

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