sort_uris_by_kind

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is 'offline' and 'deterministic', which is useful. However, it does not explain error behavior for invalid URIs, how duplicates are handled, the exact structure of the returned groups, or what the response_format options (concise/detailed/json) entail. This is a partial disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence. The core action is front-loaded ('Sort Spotify references'), followed by the grouping logic and the offline qualifier. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and group labels but omits details such as return format, handling of mixed or invalid URIs, and ordering of groups. While the presence of response_format suggests varying output, its specifics are not described. The description is adequate for a simple utility but leaves some operational details unclear.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds the context that inputs are 'Spotify references' and lists valid entity kinds, which helps interpret the 'uris' parameter. It does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, and the response_format parameter is sufficiently explained in the schema itself.

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 'sort', the resource 'Spotify references', and enumerates all entity kinds (track, album, artist, playlist, show, episode, audiobook, user). It also specifies the output as 'labelled per group', distinguishing it from counting or classifying tools like count_uris_by_type or classify_spotify_uris.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'offline', which hints at determinism but does not explain why one would pick this over other grouping tools (e.g., split_uri_list, uri_kind_stats). No exclusions or context of use are provided.

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