spotify-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the 'compact' nature of the return data and that it covers the 'full artist landscape,' but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or authentication scope requirements.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core function (get summary), while the second explains the value proposition (compact landscape for reasoning). Every word earns its place.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and why. It could be improved by mentioning data freshness or caching behavior, but it is sufficient for invocation decisions.

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, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rules. No parameter explanation is required.

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 specific action (Get a summary), resource (synced library), and exact data points returned (artist counts, playlist names, dates). It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_get_saved_tracks by emphasizing this is a compact summary rather than full track data.

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 second sentence provides clear usage context: use this for reasoning about 'vibes, genres, and groupings' when you want to avoid 'loading every track.' This implicitly guides against using full-track fetch tools, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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