get_playlist

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it works for any playlist id, but item count is only meaningful for owned or collaborated playlists. It also clarifies that the tool returns metadata, not contents, which is valuable guidance.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat and sibling routing are efficiently included.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it differs from the related sibling, and the key limitation of item counts. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage for parameters is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that playlist_id can be any playlist id, not just one the user owns. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 returns metadata for one playlist, explicitly listing the fields (name, description, owner, item count) and distinguishing it from the contents of the playlist. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling get_playlist_items.

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?

It provides an explicit routing instruction: use get_playlist_items for tracks, and get_playlist for metadata. It also gives an important caveat about item count reliability, which helps an agent decide when results are meaningful.

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