trmnl_list_playlist_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds only the raw endpoint path, no scoping details (whose playlist, pagination, ordering) beyond what the annotations and name convey.

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 short lines, verb-first, with no filler. The endpoint reference is marginal but harmless and can aid debugging.

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?

A simple read with full annotation coverage and a documented single parameter, so little is required. However, with no output schema, the description gives no hint of what a playlist item looks like or whether results are paginated, leaving a moderate gap.

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?

Leaf parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the description adds nothing about 'profile' semantics, but the schema already documents it (defaults to default). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list the caller's playlist items, with the underlying endpoint (GET /api/playlists/items) confirming scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling playlist tools such as trmnl_list_device_playlist or trmnl_get_playlist_item_preview, so it falls short of 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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling playlist tools (device playlist, item preview, schedule, coverage). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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