Get Saved Albums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by disclosing pagination mechanics (limit/offset) and the shape of the response ('items' with added_at), but says nothing about authentication scope requirements or result-size limits at the account level.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is scannable with no filler. The Returns block is partly redundant with the existing output schema, a minor waste, but the rest 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and pagination adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to the many saved-library siblings (save_albums, check_saved_albums, remove_saved_albums).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it gives limit a valid range (1-50) and default 20, and explains offset as 'Number of albums to skip for pagination'. This meaningfully exceeds the bare integer properties in the schema, though it omits edge-case behavior for out-of-range values.

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 and resource ('Get albums saved in the user's library'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like check_saved_albums, save_albums, or get_album, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to call this instead of get_album (single album) or check_saved_albums (existence check), nor when to page through the library versus search. The 'saved in the user's library' phrasing implies scope but offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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