Get playlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that results include entries in order, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if playlist_id is invalid), permission requirements, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—the description adds some behavioral context but could be richer.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word adds value—'one playlist' vs. list, 'with its entries' clarifies scope, 'in order' adds ordering. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers the main outcome (fetching a single playlist with entries in order). The schema fully explains parameters. Missing details like error handling or pagination are minor; the description is largely complete for a straightforward read tool.

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 coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only implicitly relates to the resource. Baseline of 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Fetches') and the resource ('one playlist with its entries'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_playlists (which lists all playlists) and create/update/delete operations. The addition of 'in order' adds specific context about the result ordering.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied that you use it for a single playlist (as opposed to list_playlists for browsing all playlists), there is no direct guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need to obtain playlist_id first) or when not to use it. The schema hint on playlist_id ('as returned by list_playlists') partially compensates, but the description itself lacks usage direction.

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