playlists_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' specifically includes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or usage context among siblings. For a tool in a crowded namespace with no structured output information, more contextual guidance is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'playlistId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a 'specific playlist' is targeted. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't enhance but doesn't detract from parameter understanding.

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 'Get details of a specific playlist' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('playlist'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'playlists_get_all' (list all) and 'playlists_get_active' (get active one), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The specificity is adequate but not fully optimized for sibling differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools like 'playlists_get_all', 'playlists_get_active', and 'playlists_get_focused', there's no indication of when this specific playlist retrieval is preferred over other playlist-related get operations. The agent must infer usage from the parameter requirement alone.

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