extract_spotify_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation makes zero network calls and that the output is a 22-char entity ID, which is valuable and non-obvious. It does not mention error behavior or expected_kind mismatch handling, but the disclosed traits are clear and relevant.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the essential details (22-char, accepted forms, zero network calls) after an em dash. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple utility with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently defines inputs, output shape, and network behavior. It leaves minor gaps such as failure modes or how expected_kind affects the result, but the core calling context is complete enough for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ref parameter by listing accepted forms, but it adds no new meaning for expected_kind beyond what the schema already states ('compared against this value').

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 uses a specific verb (Extract) plus a precise resource (bare 22-char Spotify entity ID) and clearly enumerates the accepted reference forms (URI, open.spotify.com URL, bare ID). This distinguishes it from sibling URI utilities like normalize_spotify_uri or validate_spotify_uri, which serve different purposes.

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 states when this tool is appropriate — any time a bare ID is needed from any Spotify reference — and adds the key qualifier 'zero network calls', which signals it is a lightweight, offline alternative to API-based lookups. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or state when not to use it.

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