vibo_get_playlist_songs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the tool's safety profile, and the description adds no further behavioral disclosure such as pagination details, connectivity requirements, or error behavior. The 'connected-service' scope constraint is mildly informative, but the description does not enrich behavioral transparency beyond what the annotations provide.

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 clear sentence with no filler, and the key scope ('connected-service playlists') is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema.

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 simple read-only listing operation, the description plus fully documented schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly: source, playlistId, and paging controls are all covered. There is no output schema and the response shape is not described, but the tool name and 'List the tracks' make the return concept clear enough for selection and invocation.

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%, with each parameter already documented in detail: skip/limit defaults, the source enum with a connectivity note, and playlistId traced back to vibo_get_playlists. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema fully carries this dimension at the baseline level.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('tracks in one of your connected-service playlists'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like vibo_get_section_songs, though it does not explicitly name them, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or 'use X instead' routing. The phrase 'connected-service playlists' implies the tool is for external streaming playlists rather than internal section content, and the schema's playlistId reference to vibo_get_playlists suggests a natural call sequence, but the description itself leaves usage selection largely implicit.

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