Playback queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states that 'add' modifies state (queues) and 'list' reads state, but omits important behavioral details such as required prerequisites (e.g., active device), rate limits, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently covers both actions. It is front-loaded with 'action=add' and easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the two actions explicitly.

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?

Given the tool has two actions, three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format of 'list', prerequisites, or error cases. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 67% (uri and query have descriptions; action has none). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: it repeats that uri and query are for add. It does not clarify the interplay between uri and query or the exact format of URIs. The enum values for action are self-explanatory.

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 two actions (add and list) and what each does: add queues a track by query or URI, list shows currently playing and upcoming tracks. It distinguishes from siblings like 'play' or 'now_playing' by focusing on queue manipulation, but could be more explicit about scope.

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 provides context on when to use each action (add vs list), but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like 'play' or 'now_playing'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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