snapshot_stats_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Compute stats' strongly implies a read-only analysis with no side effects, and the stat list is disclosed. But it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, what the response looks like, or what happens if the snapshot is invalid or missing.

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 tight and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. The Snapshot guide adds useful sibling context but is a bit long relative to the primary description; still, each listed tool earns its place by orienting the agent among many snapshot-related 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 two-parameter read-only stats tool with a 100%-covered schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is computed and locates the tool within the snapshot workflow. It could be more complete with explicit when-to-use guidance versus read_playlist_snapshot, but no critical call-correctness information is missing.

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%, and both parameters are already described in the schema: snapshot is an id/filename/path and response_format has an enum with default. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Compute stats for one snapshot' and enumerates exact outputs (track count, unique URIs, duplicates, oldest/newest added_at dates). It clearly differentiates this from snapshot create/list/read/diff/restore siblings by labeling 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 maps sibling tools to operation categories (create, list, read, diff, restore), giving an agent context for how snapshot_stats_report fits. However, it never explicitly states a condition like 'use this when you need aggregate stats rather than raw snapshot contents', so the selection rule is implied rather than fully stated.

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