commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (output path, schema version, object counts), the force parameter behavior (overrides secret-scan refusal), and format differences. It does not mention whether the operation modifies the graph (it appears read-only), but this is implicit from 'snapshot' and 'export'.

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 extremely concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states the action, second gives format guidance, third returns. No wasted words.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main return values, format options, and a special behavior (force). It could elaborate on the distinction between 'abhi' and 'bundle' formats, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of different commit_formats and the context for using the force parameter. It does not elaborate on project/agent/session partitioning, but the schema already covers those.

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 uses a specific verb 'Snapshot' and identifies the resource as 'current memory graph'. It clearly states the action (export to portable file) and mentions use cases (migration, restore, offline archive), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other operations like querying or modifying the graph.

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 gives explicit guidance on using the 'commit_format' parameter with examples ('abhi', 'backup') and explains the output (path, schema version, object counts). It implies usage scenarios but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools for similar tasks.

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