set_repeat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the three modes and what each does, but says nothing about persistence, whether it applies to the active device, or interactions with the queue. Adequate disclosure for a simple setter, but not rich.

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?

Front-loads the action, then presents the values as a tight bulleted mapping. No filler sentences; every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented. For a simple setter this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around session/device prerequisites.

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 schema declares only a bare string with no enum, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It fully enumerates the valid values ('off', 'track', 'context') and explains each one, which is exactly the value the schema fails to provide.

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 and resource ('Cambia el modo de repetición'), so the agent immediately knows it sets playback repeat behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling set_shuffle, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the playback-control context; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any statement about prerequisites (e.g. an active device/session). It does not mention alternatives such as set_shuffle, though the intent is inferable.

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