get_saved_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: with fetch_all, the collection is capped at 500 items. It also implies by 'Set fetch_all=true' that the default behavior returns only a single page, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact response structure (no output schema). For a read-only tool, these gaps are moderate.

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 two sentences with zero unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and then provides the single most important usage nuance (fetch_all) in the second sentence. Every word contributes to meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and the key fetch_all behavior. It does not describe the default pagination behavior (that a single page of 20 items is returned per default limit) which is inferable from the schema defaults, nor does it detail the response object shape since no output schema exists. However, for a list-retrieval tool in a well-understood domain, this is adequate.

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 four parameters have descriptive text in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning for limit, market, or offset beyond what the schema already provides. It does repeat the 'capped at 500 items' detail for fetch_all, but that is already present in the schema's description of fetch_all, so no value is added. The description does not clarify any parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema.

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 'Get' and a precise resource 'tracks saved in the user's Liked Songs'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_saved_albums, get_saved_shows, etc., which target different resource types. The phrase 'Liked Songs' is the exact user-facing term for this collection, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 gives a concrete usage hint: 'Set fetch_all=true to retrieve the entire collection (capped at 500 items)'. This tells the agent when to use the fetch_all flag. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_saved_albums or get_saved_shows, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The usage guidance is implicit from the name and purpose, but a note about using the specific sibling for other saved types would have been clearer.

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