playlist_snapshot_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it explicitly states 'Read-only, no API calls'—critical safety and side-effect information. It also discloses that the item list is truncated by max_results and that the data is historical/local. This is complete for a non-mutating offline inspection tool.

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 two concise, high-information sentences with no redundant wording. The primary capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the safety trait (read-only, no API calls) is clearly stated in the second.

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?

Given that all parameters are thoroughly described in the schema and the tool is a simple read-only inspection, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what is retrieved, the truncation behavior, and that no API calls are made. It could specify the exact return shape more precisely since there is no output schema, but 'item_count plus full item list' is sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only modest semantic value beyond the schema, such as clarifying that max_results truncates the item list and mentioning item_count in the output, which is enough to meet the baseline expected with full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Inspect') and resource ('one playlist inside a local backup snapshot'), and states what is returned (item_count plus item list). It distinguishes itself from live API tools by noting it is offline and reads backups, but it does not explicitly differentiate among the many snapshot-related sibling tools.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: this tool is for inspecting local backup data without making API calls, which tells the agent when to prefer it over live-data tools. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't name any alternative snapshot tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like read_playlist_snapshot.

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