list_playlists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all playlists') but doesn't mention critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response format, or error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with a media server, more context about permissions or data structure would be helpful, making this inadequate for full understanding.

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 description doesn't mention the optional 'playlist_type' parameter at all. However, the input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter clearly documented as an optional filter by type with enum values. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, even though the description adds no parameter semantics.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all playlists on the Plex server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_playlist' or 'get_collections', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_playlist' or 'get_collections'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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