find_new_since_snapshot

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read/query operation with 'compare' and 'list', but it does not explicitly state that the live playlist and snapshot are left unmodified, nor does it disclose behavior for missing snapshots, duplicates, ordering, or playlists with removed tracks. The core behavior is clear, but edge-case behavior is not.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the primary action and expected outcome efficiently, and every word contributes to the 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?

The description is minimally sufficient for invoking the tool, especially with the fully documented parameter schema. However, it does not describe the output structure beyond 'list tracks added', and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It also does not clarify how this tool relates to the many sibling diff/snapshot tools, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, including defaults, constraints, and response_format options. The description adds only the conceptual framing of 'live playlist' and 'snapshot', which is helpful but not required for invocation. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action (comparing a live playlist against a snapshot) and a specific result (listing tracks added since the snapshot). This is precise enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and to distinguish it from related tools like find_lost_since_snapshot, which focuses on removed 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as diff_since_snapshot, snapshot_new_tracks, or find_lost_since_snapshot. It also provides no exclusions, preconditions, or notes about when this tool is the right choice.

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