spotifyInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It reveals important behavioral traits including the need for an active device for certain actions (nowPlaying/state/queue), the workflow for playing music (search first, then use spotifyPlayer), and device checking procedures. The only gap is lack of information about rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. While it contains valuable information, it uses a bulleted list format that mixes usage guidelines with behavioral information, making it less front-loaded than ideal. Every sentence earns its place, but the organization could be more logical.

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's complexity (8 parameters, multiple action types) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers usage scenarios, prerequisites, and behavioral constraints effectively. The main gap is the absence of information about return values or response formats, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, though it does provide context about how the 'accion' parameter maps to specific use cases. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the 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's purpose as searching and obtaining information from Spotify, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spotifyPlayer by focusing on information retrieval rather than playback control, though the distinction could be more explicit about being purely informational versus interactive.

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 excellent usage guidelines with explicit examples for common scenarios like playing music, checking devices, and monitoring playback. It clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus spotifyPlayer and includes important prerequisites about device requirements for certain actions like nowPlaying/state/queue.

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