list_playlists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the row shape, ordering source, path-joining behavior, the effect of tree=True, and the absence of track counts. These are real behavioral traits beyond the schema fields.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded. The flat list, row fields, and path semantics come first, followed by the parameter behavior and the sibling tool redirect. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and an output schema exists. The description covers return shape, ordering, path rendering, tree behavior, and what is intentionally omitted. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the sole parameter. It does: 'Pass tree=True for the raw nested tree' adds meaning beyond the boolean property name and default. It could have also noted the default behavior explicitly, but the default is already in the schema.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Return every') and names the exact resources: playlists, folders, and smartlists. It also distinguishes the flat-list default from the nested tree mode, and points to get_playlist_tracks for contents, making it clear what this tool is and is not.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'No track counts either way; use get_playlist_tracks for contents.' It also explains the tree=True trade-off, which guides the agent on selecting the right call shape. This is strong usage routing relative to its siblings.

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