List playlists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the returned playlists include 'complete ordered screen membership,' which clarifies the structure and ordering of the result, going beyond the annotation alone.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List Terminus playlists') and then adds a meaningful detail ('complete ordered screen membership'). Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It conveys the primary purpose, the resource scope, and the key return value structure (ordered screen membership). The zero-parameter design means there are no additional prerequisites or configuration details to document.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides full coverage (100%). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool is a baseline 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It appropriately avoids mentioning nonexistent parameters.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies both the resource ('Terminus playlists') and a key differentiator ('complete ordered screen membership'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_screens or save_playlist.

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 implies the tool is for read-only retrieval of playlists with their screen memberships, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., save_playlist for modifications, list_screens for screens). There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions.

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