rediscover_tracks

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

The annotations already communicate read-only safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral value by explaining that the output is a set of track URIs intended for review and downstream playlist construction. It does not mention sorting or whether results are deduplicated, but those are minor gaps given the read-only annotation.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core concept, adds a helpful example, and names the exact downstream use. No words are wasted and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 description covers the core use case, required date parameters, the optional recency threshold, and the output format, and an output schema exists for further detail. The only real gaps are the undocumented semantics of limit and min_plays, which are minor because of their self-explanatory names and defaults.

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 description must compensate. It clearly explains played_start/played_end date format and the meaning of not_since_months. However, it does not describe limit or min_plays, which are only inferable from their names and defaults. This is meaningful partial compensation but not complete.

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 a specific behavior: surfacing tracks heavily played in a past window but untouched for a period. The example and the phrase 'haven't touched since' distinguish it from currently popular or recently played tools, and the output format (track URIs) is stated.

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 gives a concrete use case and even includes a natural-language example ('40 tracks I played a lot in 2023 but haven't touched since'). It also suggests downstream tools for acting on the results. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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