spotifyPlayer

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. It excels by detailing error-handling scenarios (e.g., 'No hay dispositivo activo', 'Premium requerido'), recovery steps (using spotifyInfo, transfer, openApp), and user interactions (e.g., 'Pide al usuario que reproduzca algo manualmente'). This goes far beyond basic functionality.

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 overly verbose and poorly structured, mixing purpose, error-handling, and workflows in a dense paragraph. It lacks front-loading of core functionality, and many sentences could be condensed or moved to a separate guidelines section, reducing clarity.

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 complexity of a playback control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, error recovery, and integration with sibling tools, providing all necessary context for an agent to operate effectively despite missing structured data.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, though it implies usage patterns (e.g., using 'uri' or 'tipo+id' for play). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Controla reproduccion de Spotify' (controls Spotify playback), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like spotifyInfo or spotifyLibrary, though the focus on playback control implies a distinction.

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 extensive usage guidelines, including explicit error-handling workflows (e.g., 'Si error "No hay dispositivo activo"'), recommended flows ('FLUJO RECOMENDADO cuando no reproduce'), and references to sibling tools (spotifyInfo for search and devices). It clearly indicates when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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