list_saved_shows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral details: truncation to max_results, a fetch-all hint for longer results, and the default 'concise' prose style. However, it does not explain the fetch-all mechanism or exact output shape, and its stated default of 20 rows conflicts with the schema's default of SPOTIFY_MCP_MAX_ITEMS or 50, which slightly undermines trust.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and then add the key behavioral details. There is no wasted prose.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to be usable and names the return fields and response styles. Still, the fetch-all hint is vague, the return structure is only partially specified, and the default discrepancy creates ambiguity, leaving clear gaps.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a fetch-all hint for max_results but also states 'Default 20 rows' while the schema says the default is SPOTIFY_MCP_MAX_ITEMS env or 50 — a direct and misleading contradiction that lowers the score.

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 ('List the shows saved in your library') and specifies useful output fields (publisher, episode count, saved date). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling get_saved_shows, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_saved_shows or search_saved_shows, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The 'saved in library' phrasing is context, but the description does not aid tool selection.

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