get_playlist_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that owner_uid reaches other users' PUBLIC playlists — but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what happens when a playlist is private or inaccessible.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and then the owner_uid scoping rule. No filler sentences; 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a tool with a mandatory 'kind' parameter the description is incomplete: an agent cannot determine what value 'kind' expects or what it selects. The owner_uid note is good, but the central required input is left a mystery.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains owner_uid's semantics well, but the REQUIRED parameter 'kind' is completely undefined in both schema and description, and 'limit' (default 200) is never mentioned. This leaves the primary parameter opaque.

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 states a specific verb+resource (retrieving playlist tracks) and its default scope is clear, distinguishing it from siblings like get_liked_tracks or list_my_playlists. However, it never explains the required 'kind' discriminator, which is the core selector for WHICH playlist is fetched, so the purpose is only partially pinned down.

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?

'По умолчанию — мой плейлист; owner_uid — для чужого публичного' gives a usable rule for when to pass owner_uid versus omit it. But there is no guidance on when to use this tool over get_liked_tracks, list_my_playlists, or get_album_tracks, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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