Spotify Queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the nuance that it returns both the current item and next items, which is useful but doesn't go beyond what the tool obviously does. No mention of limits, pagination, or playback state considerations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant phrasing. 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?

For a simple read-only tool with a single optional parameter, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output. The output schema covers return details. However, it could explicitly mention that limit applies to the next items only, which is a minor gap.

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 has 0% description coverage for the `limit` parameter, and the description doesn't explain that limit controls how many items are returned. While the name 'limit' gives some hint, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's default/min/max values.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource ('current item and next items in the Spotify playback queue'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like spotify_now_playing or spotify_add_to_queue. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is for reading the queue state, but it doesn't explicitly compare it to alternatives such as spotify_now_playing or spotify_devices. It provides clear context (returns queue contents) but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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