list_playlists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-style list operation and adds the useful scoping detail that both owned and followed playlists are included. Yet it does not mention return shape, ordering, or pagination, which is typical for list endpoints.

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?

A single, well-constructed sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the inclusion of followed playlists.

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, zero-parameter list operation, the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main omission is the return contract: with no output schema, an agent cannot know what fields or pagination information to expect, but this is a minor gap for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is simply no parameter meaning for the description to add. The word 'all' reinforces that the call is intentionally unparameterized.

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 identifies the action ('List'), the target resource ('playlists in the user's library'), and the scope ('owned and followed'). This lets an agent distinguish it from tools like get_playlist (single playlist) or create_playlist (write operation) without needing to inspect other schemas.

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 intended use is implied from the phrase 'List all playlists' — use it when a broad, unfiltered playlist enumeration is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_in_playlists, summarize_library, or get_saved_tracks, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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