get_followed_artists

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

The description only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose that it requires an access token, that the result is scoped to the authenticated user, or what the response shape is. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 short sentence, extremely front-loaded and free of clutter. It is not verbose, though it borders on under-specification; for a simple getter, this level of conciseness is acceptable, even if other dimensions penalize the lack of detail.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves essential context undocumented: authentication requirements, pagination behavior via 'limit', scoping to the current user, and the format of returned artists. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without external knowledge.

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% and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'access_token' parameters. The input schema only provides names, types, and defaults, leaving the agent to guess whether 'limit' caps the result count and whether 'access_token' is the Spotify OAuth token, so the description adds no 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'user's followed artists', making the primary function clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_user_saved_tracks' or 'get_youtube_subscriptions' because it names a different resource and action, though it does not clarify whether 'user' refers to the authenticated user or a specified one.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_user_top_items' or 'follow_artists_or_users'. There are no prerequisites, authentication caveats, or context that would help an agent decide between this and similar retrieval tools.

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