recently_played

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'most recent first' ordering, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not disclose the default limit behavior (though this is in the schema) or any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no tracks exist. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short of providing comprehensive behavioral context.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and has no extraneous words, making it efficient. Every word contributes to the core 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?

The tool has a simple schema (one optional parameter) and an output schema, but with no annotations, the description must provide sufficient context. It covers the basic purpose and ordering, but lacks details on default behavior (e.g., default limit of 10), authentication requirements, or error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is partially complete but could be enhanced with a note about the 'limit' parameter and potential use cases.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'limit' parameter, providing only a type and default. The description itself doesn't explain 'limit' either, but the default value of 10 is clear and the parameter is optional. However, since the schema is minimal, the description would need to explain that 'limit' controls the number of tracks returned; it does not. Given 0% coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't mention the parameter at all. Score 3 would be generous; with 0% coverage, this is a significant gap, so 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb (get) and resource (recently played tracks), with a temporal ordering ('most recent first'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'now_playing' (current track) and 'top_tracks' (all-time), but does not explicitly name these alternatives. It provides sufficient clarity for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could more explicitly differentiate from similar list tools.

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 for retrieving recent listening history, but gives no explicit context on when to prefer this over 'top_tracks' or 'now_playing'. It does not state exclusions (e.g., 'not for current track'), leaving the agent to infer appropriateness. This is adequate but lacks the explicit guidance that would help distinguish it from sibling tools.

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