list_playlists

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a non-mutating read ('List') and that it operates on the 'authenticated user', which covers auth context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default result counts, quota cost, or whether private playlists are included — meaningful gaps for an API tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 11-word sentence with zero filler. The action ('List playlists') is front-loaded and the scope qualifier follows immediately, so an agent absorbs the essential information in one pass.

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 low-complexity tool — one optional parameter, no required parameters, full schema coverage — the description covers the core invocation facts: action, resource, and auth context. With no output schema present, it leaves the return shape and pagination behavior unstated, which is a minor but real gap for an agent planning how to consume the result.

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%: channel_id is already documented as 'optional, defaults to authenticated user.' The tool description's 'authenticated user or a specific channel' phrasing largely restates that schema content rather than adding new meaning. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List'), resource ('playlists'), and scope ('authenticated user or a specific channel'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_videos and get_video_details, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the closest sibling, get_playlist_videos, leaving that distinction implicit.

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 implies a usage context — an agent needing an account's or channel's playlists would select this tool — but offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., get_playlist_videos for the videos inside a playlist) nor any exclusions, so routing decisions are left to the agent's inference.

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