Last recorded artifact-integrity snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is stale by design (last snapshot, not live), and the tool is equivalent to reading a file directly. This is useful transparency about what the tool does and does not reflect.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and resource, the second adds the critical staleness caveat, and the third offers an equivalent alternative. No fluff, and the most important caveat is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, its staleness limitation, and an alternative. The only minor gap is not describing the structure of the artifact integrity map, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description does not need to.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The description still clarifies what the returned artifact integrity map represents, which is the closest relevant semantic context. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and resource (the artifact integrity map from .rrt/artifacts.lock.toml), and immediately distinguishes it from a live check by noting it reflects the last snapshot, not current state. This clearly separates it from siblings like rrt_drift and rrt_validate_branch.

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 explicitly says when to use it (to get the last snapshot) and when not to rely on it ('not current state; run the CLI check to compare against the working tree'). It also names an alternative approach (Read .rrt/artifacts.lock.toml) for clients that can read files directly, which is strong usage guidance.

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