spotify_resolve_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the tool makes network calls, rate limits, or failure handling for invalid links. Since there is no output schema, the agent doesn't know what to expect in the response. The description is purely functional without explaining side effects or error behavior.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could benefit from mentioning the output format or failure handling, but it is appropriately concise for its length.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It doesn't specify the exact format for links (e.g., Spotify track URLs vs Apple Music), the max batch size (though schema indicates 50), or how to handle invalid links. The optional 'market' parameter is undocumentedž For a batch resolution tool, this is a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'Spotify or YouTube links' but doesn't explain the 'links' parameter format (e.g., URLs vs URIs). The 'market' parameter is not mentioned at all. Since there are only two parameters and the description provides some context for 'links', it adds partial value, but the market parameter remains unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as resolving a batch of Spotify or YouTube links into Spotify track candidates. It states the verb (resolve), the resource (links), and the output (Spotify track candidates). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning YouTube links, which is unique. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the batch aspect or the output format, but the verb+resource is clear.

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 converting links to Spotify track candidates, and the batch aspect is implied by 'batch'. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like youtube_resolve_links or spotify_search_tracks. There's no mention of prerequisites or links that fail resolution. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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