List my playlists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so by scoping results to playlists the user owns or follows and by stating that track counts are included. The "List" verb plus the read-only intent makes side effects clear, though it does not discuss auth or pagination.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first states the return content and scope, the second gives the downstream use case. No filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return values and the intended workflow. It is only slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly say that max caps the result count.

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 only parameter, max, is not mentioned in the description, and there is no parameter description in the schema, so the agent must infer that max limits the number of playlists returned. The schema provides bounds and a default, but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 title and description identify a specific list operation: playlists the current user owns or follows, enriched with track counts. It is clearly distinguished from siblings such as analyze_playlist by stating its role as the source of playlist names.

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 states an explicit use case: "Use this to find a name to pass to analyze_playlist." It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives, but sibling tools are mostly distinct domains, so this is sufficient context for selection.

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