get_user_playlists

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 only states the function, not how it behaves—no mention of pagination, the fetch_all option, default limits, or what the response contains. The schema descriptions for limit/offset/fetch_all partially compensate, but the description itself fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the bare 'list' action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters and no output schema. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the description does not mention pagination, the fetch_all behavior, or the expected response shape. For a list endpoint, this is a minimal but acceptable level of completeness—an agent can infer the pagination mechanism from the parameters, but the description alone lacks sufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior without inspecting the schema.

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 (limit, offset, fetch_all) are described in the schema, including their ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the rubric sets a baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high. Since the description does not elevate understanding beyond the schema, the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the current user's playlists'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_playlist (which retrieves a specific playlist by ID) and create_playlist. The phrase 'current user' unambiguously scopes the operation to the authenticated user, making the tool's purpose instantly understandable.

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 when to use the tool (to enumerate the user's playlists) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_playlist, create_playlist, or add_to_playlist exist, but the description offers no direct comparison or guidance on when not to use this tool. The context is clear, but no explicit routing is provided.

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