get_my_playlists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the selection criterion (owned or followed playlists) and is consistent with the read-only annotation. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what fields a followed playlist entry includes. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Six words with no filler, and the 'owns or follows' qualifier earns its place. It is a model of brevity, though it borders on under-specification as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, so it does not quite reach a 5.

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 is low in complexity (2 optional params), has an output schema so return values are documented elsewhere, and has read-only annotations. What is missing is pagination semantics for limit/offset and any sibling-routing context to help an agent choose among get_playlist, get_playlist_items, or get_saved_albums. Adequate but thin.

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 limit and offset properties carry no descriptive text in the schema, and the tool description also fails to mention them. The conventional names and defaults partially mitigate the gap, but the rubric requires the description to compensate at low coverage, and it adds zero parameter information.

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 is a noun phrase, not a sentence with a verb; the action is implied only by the tool name 'get'. It does identify the resource (playlists) and a meaningful scope ('owns or follows') that distinguishes it from singular get_playlist or track-level get_saved_tracks, but the missing verb and fragment form make the purpose less explicit than it could be.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs the 33 sibling tools. There is no mention of get_playlist for a specific playlist, get_playlist_items for contents, or get_saved_albums for saved items, and no exclusions or alternatives are stated. The 'owns or follows' scope is the only implicit hint, which is not enough for routing.

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