playlist_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it explicitly states that the operation is read-only. It also names the four categories of issues examined, which meaningfully clarifies what the audit checks beyond the tool name.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the exact audit dimensions. Every phrase earns its place, and the read-only note is positioned to prevent misuse.

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 one-parameter, read-only audit tool, the description covers the core invocation decision and safety profile. It could mention what the returned audit report looks like or how unavailable/local tracks are determined, but those are minor omissions for selecting and invoking the call.

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 playlist_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'a playlist' reinforces that the single parameter is the target playlist but adds no extra format, syntax, or source details.

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 ('Audit'), a clear resource ('a playlist'), and enumerates exact issue categories (unavailable, local, duplicate, empty). The read-only qualifier also helps distinguish this from mutating playlist-cleanup siblings.

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 provides clear context: call this when you want a read-only diagnostic of a playlist's health issues. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of the highest score.

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