snapshot_added_at_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral info: the output is bucketed by month in YYYY-MM format, and the verb 'Report' implies a read-only analysis operation. But it doesn't state prerequisites (snapshot must contain added_at metadata), whether the operation triggers any API calls or rate limits, or any error behavior. Acceptable but with clear gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste: verb, resource, unit of analysis, and output format all in one compact line. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity (2 params, 1 required, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description does cover the return format via the bucketing phrase. But with no annotations and no usage guidance among ~30 snapshot-related siblings, the definition is adequate yet incomplete — an agent still cannot tell when to pick this over get_playlist_added_dates or added_on_this_day.

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 modest context by clarifying that 'snapshot' refers to the tracks contained in a snapshot and that the report concerns playlist-added timing, but it doesn't add syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. A 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Report'), a specific resource (tracks in a snapshot), and the analytical question (when they were added to the playlist), plus the output bucketing (YYYY-MM). This is clear and concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate among the large family of snapshot tools (snapshot_changelog, snapshot_stats_report, get_playlist_added_dates), so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives are mentioned. Given the dense sibling family including get_playlist_added_dates, added_on_this_day, snapshot_changelog, and snapshot_stats_report, an agent receives no help deciding which tool fites the context. The description is purely functional with zero routing information.

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