用户歌单

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint not in the annotations: only public playlists of other users are reachable, and the default target is the current session's user. It omits anything about result ordering or pagination beyond the schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the default-user and cross-user cases packed into a brief parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a read-only list tool with three optional, fully described parameters and no output schema, this covers what is returned (created + collected playlists), the default target, and the visibility limit for other users. A note on result ordering or expected volume would have closed the remaining gap.

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%, and the uid/limit/offset semantics (defaults, max 100, offset paging) are fully documented there. The description only restates uid's default and adds the public-visibility note; limit and offset get no mention, so it does little 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?

States a concrete verb+resource (获取用户创建和收藏的歌单), including both the created and the collected scopes, which distinguishes it implicitly from get_playlist (single playlist) and get_recommended_playlists. It never names a sibling for contrast, so it falls short of a 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?

The parenthetical does supply usable context: omit uid for the logged-in user, supply uid for another user's public playlists. That is guidance for the uid parameter rather than a when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement, and no alternative tool (e.g. get_recommended_playlists, get_liked_songs) is mentioned.

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