list_playlists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds valuable context: it specifies the cost ('Costs 1 quota unit'), which is crucial for usage planning, and clarifies the default behavior for omitted parameters. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details (cost and parameter rules). The Args section is structured for clarity without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, key behavior (cost), and parameter semantics thoroughly. The output schema will handle return values, so no need to explain them here.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so excellently: it explains both parameters in detail—'channel_id' (with the rule for omission) and 'max_results' (including range and default). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameters fully understandable for an AI agent.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('playlists'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_playlist_items' (which lists items within playlists) and 'create_playlist' (which creates new playlists). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all list-like siblings such as 'list_categories' or 'list_channel_videos', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'If channel_id is omitted, lists the authenticated user's playlists.' This gives practical guidance for the primary use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'list_playlist_items' for contents of a specific playlist) or name alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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