taste_era_playlist

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth,' which directly addresses side effects and authentication requirements. Since no annotations are provided, this statement carries the full burden, and it successfully communicates that the tool does not modify data and requires no credentials. It does not mention other potential behaviors like rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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, concise sentence: 'Era window → representative track list: pick a listening era and get its playlist spec. Read-only, no auth.' It is front-loaded with the main action and output, contains no fluff, and effectively uses an arrow to show input-to-output transformation. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only hints at the return content with 'representative track list' and 'playlist spec.' It does not specify the structure, fields, or format of the output, aside from the 'response_format' parameter which lists options but not their full content. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more detail about what the tool returns to be fully 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'era_index: Era index (0 = oldest). Default: latest'). The tool description itself adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not improve or detract from parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Era window → representative track list: pick a listening era and get its playlist spec.' It names the resource (listening era) and the output (playlist spec), which is specific enough to convey the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listening_eras' or 'taste_to_playlist', but the phrase 'representative track list' indicates a distinct focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools (e.g., 'listening_eras', 'taste_to_playlist', 'taste_daily_brief'). It simply states what it does without any conditional or comparative context. There is no 'use this when...' or reference to scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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