spotify_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (resume playback) but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (implied by sibling 'spotify_auth'), error conditions (e.g., if no playback is paused), side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 in Portuguese with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that performs a mutation (resuming playback) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return values, and how it interacts with sibling tools. Given the complexity and missing structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 the single parameter 'device_id' documented as optional and a string. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retoma a reprodução pausada' (Resumes paused playback) clearly states the tool's action and target resource (playback). It's specific with the verb 'retoma' (resumes) and resource 'reprodução pausada' (paused playback). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spotify_play' or 'spotify_play_playlist', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires active playback to be paused), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'spotify_play' (which might start new playback). Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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