export_library_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing the non-obvious cap behavior: SPOTIFY_MCP_FETCH_ALL_CAP per type, cap_reached + truncated reporting, and the prose footer. Minor gaps remain around file naming, directory creation, and overwrite behavior, but the most important side effects are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence and the cap behavior efficiently folded into the second. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly: content scope, formats, destination, and cap-reporting behavior. It does not cover exact file naming or whether the output directory must exist, but these are minor relative to the core behavior described.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add meaningfully to parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the cap-related context, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('Export'), a clear resource ('your full library'), enumerates the included content types, and specifies the destination and output formats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools such as export_playlist_json, export_followed_artists, and export_profile_state.

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 scope is explicit: full library as JSON/CSV sidecars, which makes the intended use inferable. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling export tools, leaving the routing decision mostly to the agent.

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