export_followed_artists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds a genuinely valuable behavioral caveat: 'The file's exported_at is the export time, not a per-artist follow date (Spotify does not expose followed_at).' This preempts a realistic misinterpretation of the output field. The write-to-disk side effect is also disclosed, though overwrite/file-naming behavior for repeated exports is not addressed.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action sentence, the field list, and the semantic caveat. The primary action is front-loaded, and no filler or redundancy exists.

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?

For a tool with three optional, fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is exported, where it goes, in which formats, and an important field-semantics warning. Minor gaps remain—output file naming and whether existing files are overwritten—but nothing blocks a first correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (format, output_dir, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal reinforcement by repeating 'JSON or CSV' and listing the exported fields, which maps to content rather than the parameters themselves. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Export'), a precise resource ('your followed artists'), a destination ('to a local directory'), and a format ('as JSON or CSV'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as get_followed_artists (which reads rather than writes to disk) and other export tools (export_library_json, export_profile_state) that target different resources.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicit: an agent can infer this is the tool for writing followed artists to local disk, especially given the portability default directory in the schema. However, with numerous sibling export tools (export_library_json, export_all_playlists, export_shows_opml, sidecar_export_bundle), there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives to prevent confusion about scope.

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