推荐歌单

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and variability are covered. The description's added value is the login requirement, which is real but thin; it says nothing about how many playlists come back, whether results change over time, or whether an anonymous call fails or returns empty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the login constraint both appear before any clause could be cut.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description is the only place to learn what a result contains. It never says the return is a list of playlists (with names, covers, IDs), nor how to move from a returned playlist to its tracks, which the sibling get_playlist would provide.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter claims that could mislead and correctly signals that user context comes from the session rather than from arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('获取…推荐的歌单') scoped to the current logged-in user, which distinguishes it from general retrieval tools like get_playlist and get_toplists. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_daily_recommendations.

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 parenthetical '(需要登录)' tells the agent a prerequisite, which is useful context for selection. It does not say when to prefer this over get_daily_recommendations or get_toplists, leaving the alternative choice implied rather than stated.

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