Recently played

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are capped at 50 items and that aggregated patterns are included, but it does not mention auth requirements, pagination, sorting, or what 'recent' means in terms of time window.

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 tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the cap as a useful constraint.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It would benefit from explaining the limit parameter, defining the time range of 'recent', and distinguishing the tool from my_listening_profile or taste_evolution. The lack of annotations and output schema leaves these gaps unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description never explains the limit parameter. The phrase 'Spotify caps this at 50 items' hints at a limit but does not tie it to the parameter or clarify how limit affects the response. The schema alone only provides the default/min/max.

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 resource (recent plays) and the extras it provides: most-repeated artists and listening time-of-day clustering. It is distinct enough from siblings like now_playing and my_listening_profile, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools. It is implicitly about recent listening history, but it never names alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent here.

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