analyzeDjPlaylist

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, including 'snapshot-bound' results, 'confidence when available', and the explicit statement 'without changing Spotify'. This clarifies the tool's side effects relative to the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint annotations. However, it does not disclose the potential internal state change from refreshFeatures, but this is not a contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and key outputs. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or redundant details.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, safety (no Spotify changes), and return highlights, but it lacks parameter usage context and explicit differentiation from related tools. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, feature overrides, source selection), the description is not fully complete, though the output schema and annotations fill some gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies playlistId through 'complete Spotify playlist' and vaguely alludes to 'unresolved data' for missingFeaturePolicy. Parameters like source, refreshFeatures, featureOverrides, and missingFeaturePolicy are not explained, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for their use.

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 tool's primary function: 'Analyze a complete Spotify playlist for professional set-order planning.' It lists specific outputs (BPM, Camelot key, relative energy, provenance, confidence) and explicitly notes that Spotify is not changed, which distinguishes it from other analysis/sorting/planning tools in the sibling list.

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 a clear use case ('professional set-order planning'), which indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use auditDjPlaylist or planDjSet instead), so it stops short of full guidance.

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