snipe_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses auto-detection from package.json/pyproject when unset and the {file} templating of test_cmd, but says nothing about whether config persists, overrides existing values, or requires any permission.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource and uses examples efficiently. The trailing 'Stop-condition limits too.' is telegraphic and does not earn much, but overall the text is compact and well structured.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter configuration tool with 0% schema coverage, six parameters are left entirely undocumented. The description is too thin to let an agent configure verification correctly.

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% across 7 parameters. The description explains only test_cmd (template with {file}, auto-detected) and vaguely alludes to 'stop-condition limits'; lint_cmd, full_test_cmd, typecheck_cmd, test_timeout, max_patch_files and max_patch_symbols remain undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Configure verification') and names concrete settings (test_cmd, stop-condition limits), so the agent knows this writes verification configuration. It does not distinguish itself from the many snipe_* siblings, but the purpose is clear.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The note that test_cmd is 'auto-detected ... when unset' hints at the omission behavior but does not tell the agent when it should call this versus letting defaults apply.

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