getplaylist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive ('Read the queue without changing it'), describes the return format, and covers edge cases like an empty queue returning an empty list. It also reveals the override behavior of the 'type' parameter. This is good behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide additional context. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It covers the return structure, empty queue behavior, and the parameter override. It could mention error scenarios (like invalid instance or no player active), but for a read-only tool this is not critical.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that specifying a type is 'the only way to inspect an inactive queue' and that the named playlist 'always wins'. This supplements the schema description for the 'type' parameter. The 'instance' parameter is not elaborated, but the schema already covers it adequately.

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 it reads the queue without modifying it, and specifies the resource as the active player's playlist or a named one (audio/video/picture). The verb 'Read' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nowplaying' (which likely shows only the current item) by indicating it returns the full playlist and position.

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 for when to use the tool (reading the queue) and notes that a named playlist 'always wins', allowing inspection of inactive queues. It implicitly suggests not to use this for changing state, and sibling tools like 'play', 'pause', 'stop' are for control. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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