canonicalize_spotify_uri

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavior: local-only execution, no network calls, known-kind validation, base62 ID handling, and tracking-param stripping. The ambiguous '*** scheme' and lack of invalid-input behavior keep it from 5.

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?

One dense sentence with the action front-loaded. Every phrase adds either behavioral detail or scope, with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description and schema together cover purpose, parameters, output formats, and side effects. It is nearly complete, but edge-case behavior for malformed or unknown URI kinds is not mentioned, and the '*** scheme' phrase is unclear.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the batch nature and processing semantics, but the schema already documents the response_format enum and the uris array. No significant additional per-parameter meaning is added.

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 action ('Canonicalise a batch'), names the resource ('Spotify references'), and scopes it with 'one local pass' and 'no network'. It also lists concrete canonicalization transforms, distinguishing it from network-dependent and singular URI helpers.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: for batch, local canonicalization without network access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as normalize_spotify_uri for single URIs, so it stops 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.