lexicon_get_playlist

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool is read-only (get) and adds an important behavioral trait: path remains valid after library re-import. This provides useful context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), front-loaded with the core action, and includes the most valuable insight (path persistence). No redundant words.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the key functionality but lacks details on behavior when both id and path are provided, error cases, or return structure (no output schema). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 is high (67%) and the schema already describes parameters reasonably (path usage example, type values). The description does not add additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Get one playlist') and specifies the two lookup methods (by ID or by path), with a key distinguishing feature (path survives library re-import). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lexicon_list_playlists.

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 the choice between id and path, and hints at when path is preferable (survives re-import). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives, though the sibling list tool is implicitly for listing.

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