Recently Played

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not describe response format, empty-list behavior, or authorization requirements. It essentially restates the tool's name.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, lacking any parameter or usage details that could make the sentence more valuable.

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 simple tool shape (1 optional parameter, output schema present, strong annotations), the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it misses parameter semantics and any guidance on alternatives, leaving minor but notable gaps for a complete picture.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Since the schema provides only constraints (default, min, max) but no semantic meaning, the description fails to compensate. Users are left to guess what 'limit' does.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('current user's most recently played Spotify tracks'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spotify_now_playing and spotify_top_tracks through the phrase 'most recently played', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as spotify_now_playing (current track) and spotify_top_tracks (long-term stats) are not mentioned, and no context is given about availability, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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