spotify_get_user_playlists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'current user's', 'playlists') contributes directly to understanding. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication requirements (critical for Spotify API), return format, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or error handling. For a tool that likely requires authentication and returns structured data, the description should provide more context about these aspects.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for the 'limit' parameter (range, default). Since the description doesn't mention parameters at all, it doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either. 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current user's playlists'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_get_user_profile (which gets user profile) and spotify_search (which searches content), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but could be more precise about scope.

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 (like authentication), when it's appropriate versus other playlist-related tools (spotify_create_playlist, spotify_add_tracks_to_playlist), or any constraints beyond what's in the schema. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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