get_saved_shows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It repeats the fetch_all behavior that is already fully documented in the schema ('Fetch all pages instead of one page (ignores limit/offset; capped at 500 items)'), adding no new information. It does not disclose pagination behavior for the default case, response format, or any side effects, so the description offers minimal transparency beyond structured data.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the fetch_all note is placed second. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick agent parsing.

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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does not describe the return format (e.g., an array of show objects) or pagination specifics beyond the schema-repeated fetch_all cap. It adequately covers the core use case but lacks hints about response structure or edge cases, making it minimally complete for a simple list endpoint.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, fetch_all) with clear meanings. The description adds only a partial restatement of fetch_all ('Set fetch_all=true to retrieve the entire collection (capped at 500 items)') that duplicates the schema, and provides no additional context for limit/offset. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get podcast shows saved in the user's library.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_saved_tracks or get_saved_albums, which target different content types. The purpose is specific and immediately actionable.

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 implies usage context (when you need the user's saved shows) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_saved_episodes or get_show. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool routing, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource name alone.

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