spotify_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature, describes the live account probe as 'best-effort', and notes the network dependency for product/country data. It stops short of describing failure modes or output format, but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact enumeration of checks. Every clause adds value: the read-only qualifier, the best-effort caveat, and the network dependency. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 diagnostics tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and behaviors. It explains the scope of checks and the read-only/best-effort nature, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. A minor gap is not explicitly describing the return shape, though the verbose parameter hints at prose output.

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 only parameter, verbose, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description, yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific action ('Run local diagnostics') and enumerates the exact checks performed, such as token presence/expiry, auth scopes vs write tools, Premium gating, rate-limit cooldown, and config snapshot. This makes the tool's purpose specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like scope_audit or quota_probe.

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 usage context—when you want a read-only health/probe of the Spotify integration. It does not state when to prefer alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, such as 'use scope_audit for deeper scope analysis' or 'use quota_probe for rate-limit details', leaving some ambiguity across the large sibling set.

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