spotify_open

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits key traits: what happens if the app is already open (idempotency), the OS requirements (it assumes a desktop platform), error behavior if Spotify isn't installed, and what is returned. Only the local-machine scoping is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter, output-less launcher this is nearly sufficient, and the schema covers the only parameter. The remaining gap is behavioral: OS prerequisites and behavior when the app is already running are unstated.

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%, and the single wait_seconds parameter is fully documented with its 0-30 range in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Open) and resource (the Spotify desktop app) and scopes it to the local machine, which distinguishes it from the API-based playback siblings. However, it never names or contrasts itself with an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 action is self-evidently a launch step, so usage is implied, but the description gives no explicit guidance such as calling this before playback tools when the app isn't running. No when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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