snipe_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that this logs findings rather than fixing drive-by issues and gives an evidence format, but it does not state persistence, permissions, or what side effects recording a snipe has.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the evidence format, then the log-not-fix rule. Every sentence adds useful information without padding.

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 five-parameter mutation/logging tool with no annotations and no schema field descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers the core purpose and evidence format but omits several parameter meanings and behavioral details needed for confident invocation, even though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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% for five parameters. The description explains kind=issue/opportunity and evidence as 'path:line' or symbol names, but it leaves problem, suspect, and priority largely unexplained, so the agent still lacks semantics for most inputs.

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 and resource: record a defect or dormant improvement, with kind values issue/opportunity. It distinguishes the two record types clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling snipe_* tools at a naming level.

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?

It gives an implied when-to-use context and one when-not instruction: 'Do not fix drive-by findings; log them.' However, it does not name alternative tools or clarify when to call snipe_add versus snipe_report, snipe_scan, or other workflow siblings.

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