music_list_playlists

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some detail about the output content (stable IDs, kinds, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or how filtering works. Since the annotations cover the critical safety aspects, this is adequate but not superior.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates useful output attributes. It contains no redundant or filler content, and every phrase contributes meaning. It is appropriately terse for a straightforward list operation.

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?

While annotations and an output schema exist, the description is incomplete because it fails to explain the five optional parameters, which are all undocumented in the schema. There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or default behavior, and no guidance relative to sibling tools. For a tool with multiple parameters and a complex ecosystem of related tools, this description leaves too much to inference.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters (kind, limit, cursor, parent_id, root_only) to compensate. It does not mention any of these parameters or their semantics. The phrase 'kinds' in the description is the only tenuous link, but it does not explain how the kind parameter filters results. This is a significant gap.

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 ('List playlists') and identifies the resource, which distinguishes it from singular getters like music_get_playlist. It also specifies key output attributes (stable IDs, kinds, parents, counts, mutation capabilities), giving a clear sense of what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related list tools (e.g., list_playlist_tracks), so it isn't a perfect 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as music_get_playlist or music_list_playlist_tracks. The description does not mention filtering options, pagination, or any context for selecting this tool. With no usage context, an agent must infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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