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

The description states the tool 'store[s] supplied source files,' implying a write operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating the tool should not modify state. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., lifecycle of the snapshot, side effects, or how the handle is used).

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('store') and purpose ('return handle for reuse'). However, it lacks any structured breakdown (e.g., sections or examples) that could improve clarity, though its brevity is not a flaw per se.

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 a stateful operation that returns a handle for later use, but the description does not explain the expected workflow, the nature of the snapshot, or how the handle should be consumed. Although an output schema exists, the description itself is too sparse to guide correct invocation, especially given the nested parameter structure.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'files' parameter. It only says 'supplied source files' without describing the array-of-objects structure (path/content) or constraints. This provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's raw type definitions.

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 ('store') and resource ('supplied source files') with a clear purpose ('return an opaque snapshot handle for reuse'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling analysis tools (e.g., find_references, query_code) which do not store files, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. The only hint is 'for reuse,' which is vague and does not clarify the workflow with sibling tools.

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