snapshot_added_at_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (a report of added dates bucketed by month) and the YYYY-MM format, which is useful. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior or describe edge cases like missing tracks or invalid snapshots, but 'Report' strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded. However, the 'Snapshot guide' is a long list of sibling tools that is only tangentially tied to this tool's invocation, and it adds bulk without directly helping an agent call snapshot_added_at_report. The description is adequately sized but not tightly scoped.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and output bucketing, and the response_format parameter fills in the remaining output modes. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on the 'detailed' or 'json' shapes could help, but the core calling scenario is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the 'snapshot' parameter refers to a playlist snapshot and that tracks come from that snapshot, but the schema already documents accepted formats and the response_format enum. No critical parameter meaning is missing.

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 ('Report when tracks were added') and a precise output shape ('bucketed by month (YYYY-MM)'). It clearly distinguishes this as a report over snapshot contents, not a create/list/diff/restore operation, reinforced by the snapshot guide.

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 'Snapshot guide' provides a helpful map of create/list/read/diff/restore tools and implies this tool is a reporting sibling, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_playlist_added_dates or snapshot_stats_report. The usage context is implied, not stated as a decision rule.

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