export_playlist_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and '1 read' is a meaningful disclosure: it signals the operation is safe, non-mutating, and quota-cheap. 'Full-fidelity' also sets the output completeness expectation. It doesn't cover pagination or error behavior, but for a simple single-read export these are minor gaps.

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 sentence with zero waste: the core action and resource are front-loaded, the field list justifies the 'full-fidelity' claim, the CSV/M3U contrast adds differentiation, and '1 read' adds cost/safety context. Every phrase earns its place.

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 3-param read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by naming the key response fields. Minor omissions — explicit pagination behavior and how response_format interacts with the JSON output — prevent a 5, but nothing critical is missing.

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% — all three parameters (playlist_id, max_results, response_format) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description's field list describes output content rather than enriching parameter meaning, adding no new param-level insight.

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?

Specific verb + resource + format: 'JSON export of one playlist.' The field list (items + added_at + added_by + URIs) precisely defines what the export contains, and the CSV/M3U contrast explains why this tool exists among many export siblings. An agent can immediately differentiate it from export_playlist_markdown and export_playlist.

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 context is implied but not explicit: the 'fields CSV/M3U lose' phrasing suggests choosing this tool when full fidelity is required, and '1 read' hints at low cost. However, it never names an actual sibling alternative or states when NOT to use it (e.g., when a lighter export suffices), leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

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