snapshot_integrity_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool reads all local snapshots and produces aggregate health information, which strongly implies a read-only report operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, explain how corruption is determined, or note potential performance costs of scanning all snapshots.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in one efficient sentence with concrete report dimensions. The second sentence is a compact, useful map of related snapshot operations, though it is slightly dense and could be polished; it still earns its place by orienting the agent among many snapshot siblings.

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 one-parameter tool with a clear aggregate report scope, the description covers the essential context: what it reports, over what data, and how it relates to other snapshot tools. There is no output schema, but the response_format parameter partially conveys output style and the description names the main report contents, which is adequate for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents response_format with a default value, an enum, and per-value descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds nothing about this parameter, but none is needed because the schema fully explains it. Thus 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Aggregate health report over all local snapshots' and lists specific report dimensions (valid vs corrupt files, per-playlist coverage, age of newest snapshot). This distinguishes it from the many sibling snapshot tools, which are categorized in the supplied guide as create/list/read/diff/restore operations.

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 opening phrase makes the use case clear: an aggregate, health-focused report over all local snapshots. The 'Snapshot guide' adds helpful context by grouping related sibling tools by operation, implying when you need create/list/read/diff/restore behavior you use those tools instead. It does not explicitly name the closest alternative report tools like snapshot_integrity_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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