playlists_get_all

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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns a complete list or paginated results, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output format. For a read operation in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more guidance would be helpful, but it meets the bare minimum.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as there's nothing to compensate for and no schema burden.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all playlists in the library'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other playlist tools like 'playlists_get' (singular) or 'playlists_get_active' by specifying 'all', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'audio_get_playlists' which might serve a similar function in a different context.

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 (e.g., 'playlists_get', 'playlists_get_active', 'audio_get_playlists'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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