youtube_list_playlists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the operation requires an authenticated user and is a listing operation; it does not state whether the call is read-only, describe pagination behavior, mention rate limits, or indicate what response shape to expect. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 one short, direct sentence that front-loads the core operation and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or boilerplate.

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 zero-required-parameter listing tool, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and the action. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what exactly is returned, whether results are paginated, or how the 'limit' parameter affects the response, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 single 'limit' parameter is not mentioned anywhere in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides no added meaning. The schema's type, default, minimum, and maximum give the agent some understanding of 'limit', but the description does not compensate for the lack of explanatory text or clarify how pagination works.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the authenticated user's YouTube playlists'), which clearly identifies the operation. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like youtube_create_playlist, youtube_search_videos, and youtube_save_track because it uniquely targets the user's own playlist collection.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you need to enumerate the authenticated user's playlists. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over youtube_search_videos or youtube_create_playlist, and no mention of when not to use it. The context is clear but alternatives and exclusions are absent.

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