spotify_uri_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 discloses two key behaviors: execution is local and null is returned when the kind segment is missing or unknown. It doesn't detail invalid-input handling or response_format effects, but the core behavior is transparent for this simple utility.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and object, then packs scope ('single', 'locally') and fallback behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-required-param utility with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the local nature, and the null fallback. The only gap is explicit routing among sibling URI helpers, but the low complexity and fully documented schema keep it sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to 'ref' by clarifying it can be a uri, url, or bare ID, and that output is the entity kind with a null fallback. It adds nothing to response_format, but the schema already documents that enum fully.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report'), a precise object ('entity kind of a single Spotify reference'), and explicitly enumerates accepted input forms (uri/url/bare ID). The local/no-API emphasis and null fallback make it distinct from siblings like classify_spotify_uris or batch_parse_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 words 'single' and 'locally' provide clear context: use this for one reference when no API call is needed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the full 5.

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