Return the one-call ChatGPT/Codex startup snapshot with workability cards, routes and current P0 focus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the tool 'returns' a snapshot and lists contents; it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, performance characteristics, or whether it is read-only. Since this is a retrieval tool, one could assume it is non-mutating, but the description does not confirm this, leaving a transparency gap.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's essence. Every word contributes meaning: 'one-call' sets expectations, 'startup snapshot' identifies the resource, and the specific elements ('workability cards, routes, current P0 focus') clarify the scope. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain input or return value details. It sufficiently conveys what the snapshot contains. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool in the broader workflow, which would improve completeness. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none.
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 returns a 'startup snapshot' with specific contents: 'workability cards, routes and current P0 focus.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, making it distinct from generic fetch tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'ops_status_summary' or 'latest_memory_snapshot', so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 word 'one-call' implies this is the primary or aggregated snapshot tool, suggesting it should be used when a comprehensive startup overview is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only weakly implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Some tools overlap in purpose: latest_memory_snapshot, ops_status_summary, and startup_operator_snapshot all provide some form of current state, and agent_query overlaps with search for information retrieval. However, the descriptions clarify distinct intents (e.g., bounded vs. full document search, operational vs. canonical snapshot), so boundaries are mostly clear.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case, but they do not follow a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are single verbs (fetch, search) while others are noun compounds (latest_memory_snapshot, ops_status_summary). This mixed style is readable but not predictable.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a public-facing query and status facade. Each tool serves a distinct role (query, search, fetch, snapshots, status, self-check), and the count feels appropriate without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers the core needs of a read-only public facade: asking questions, searching documents, fetching content, and retrieving status/snapshots. There is some redundancy among snapshot tools, but no major missing operation for the stated purpose.
