Get Playlists

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a quota cost ('1 unit'), which is useful behavioral context, though batching/quota details are also present in the schema's parameter description.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and quota cost placed last. No wasted words, though it could have spent one sentence on sibling differentiation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and quota is covered. However, for a read tool sitting beside 'list_playlists' and 'list_playlist_items', the lack of any routing guidance leaves a real completeness 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%, so both parameters (playlists, my_channel) are fully documented in the schema including batching and channel selection. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch metadata of one or more playlists) and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, privacy, item count). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_playlists', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Critically, it never explains how this differs from 'list_playlists' or 'list_playlist_items', leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool to pick.

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