snapshot_registry_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates read-only intent ('registry view') and describes the report contents, including naming anomaly detection, but does not explicitly state that no mutations occur or explain edge cases such as an empty snapshot directory. Still, it adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful snapshot guide for sibling tools. It is slightly run-on due to the transition into the guide, but every sentence provides necessary routing or output information.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: per-playlist snapshot IDs, taken_at values, track counts, and naming anomalies. It also gives enough sibling context to avoid misuse. Minor gaps like behavior when no snapshots exist or how anomalies are defined are not critical for selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter, response_format, which already documents the concise/detailed/json options and defaults. The description does not add new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: a registry view of every local snapshot, organized per playlist, including snapshot IDs, taken_at timestamps, track counts, and naming anomalies. It also references the snapshot guide, which helps distinguish this tool from related snapshot tools like list_saved_snapshots and read_playlist_snapshot.

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 embedded snapshot guide lists alternatives for create, list, read, diff, and restore operations, giving useful context about where this tool fits. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_saved_snapshots, but the 'registry view' framing strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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