apple_music_list_playlists

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

The 'Read-only:' prefix merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation and adds no new behavioral information. However, the disclosure of what the list contains (persistent IDs, names, kinds) is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite the limit/offset parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the read-only qualifier and the returned fields both land before any navigation the agent needs.

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 no-argument list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what each returned playlist record contains. Only pagination semantics are left unstated, which is a minor gap given the parameter names.

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 0% and both parameters (limit, offset) are undocumented, but they are self-explanatory pagination primitives with clear defaults, bounds, and names. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies reasonably here since the schema's constraints carry the meaning.

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 (list) and resource (Music playlists), plus the exact fields returned (persistent IDs, names, kinds). This clearly separates it from siblings like apple_music_list_tracks, apple_music_search, and apple_music_create_playlist without needing to open any schema.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as apple_music_search for name-based lookups or apple_music_list_tracks for song-level enumeration. The agent must infer that this enumerates playlists rather than tracks.

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