get_playlist

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. However, the description does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It only states the basic retrieval purpose.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action. It is efficient and front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no unnecessary information.

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 absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description should at least hint at the type of information returned (e.g., title, description, item count). Without this, the agent cannot fully understand what the tool provides.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'playlistIdOrUrl', which already explains it can be a playlist ID or URL. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so 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 tool's purpose: to retrieve YouTube playlist information by ID or URL. It uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and resource ('재생목록 정보' = playlist information), and the distinction from sibling tools like 'get_playlist_items' (which fetches items) is implied.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context that the tool accepts an ID or URL, but lacks guidance on when it is appropriate or when to use siblings like 'search_videos' or 'get_playlist_items'.

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