get_saved_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose sort order ("newest first"), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about return size, the 50-item ceiling, or that there is no pagination offset — an agent cannot tell whether it can page past the first page of results.

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 six-word sentence with the resource and the ordering front-loaded; no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it leaves room for a short clause about result size.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (saved tracks, newest first), which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the paging/limit interaction is left implicit.

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 100% ("Default 20." plus min/max bounds), so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about limit, which is the baseline-3 case when 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?

States a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource ("Liked Songs"), which is the saved-tracks collection rather than a user playlist. An agent can distinguish it from get_playlists or get_playlist_tracks by the resource name alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., authentication/user context), and no mention of the sibling pair save_tracks/remove_saved_tracks that share this resource. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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