find_lost_since_snapshot

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only comparison/list operation and does not suggest mutation. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, output shape, or any edge cases—acceptable for a simple listing tool but not especially 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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core action, the compared objects, and the result are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 description is sufficiently complete for this moderately simple tool. It explains what the operation returns (snapshot tracks that have disappeared), and the schema covers parameter meanings and defaults. There is no output schema, but the core return concept is clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by framing the snapshot as the 'baseline' and the playlist as the 'live' side, but it does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides for snapshot, playlist, max_results, or response_format.

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 names a specific operation ('Compare... and list'), a specific resource ('snapshot tracks'), and a clear outcome ('that have since disappeared from the playlist'). It also inherently distinguishes this from the sibling find_new_since_snapshot by focusing on disappeared tracks.

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 makes the intended use obvious: compare a live playlist against a snapshot and see what has been removed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and the behavior is well-scoped.

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