snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: a git commit occurs only when auto-commit is enabled. However, it omits what the snapshot entry contains, where it is written, whether the operation is reversible, and what the response looks like, so key traits for a state-mutating tool remain undisclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the conditional git behavior. It is lean without being a bare label.

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?

In a large sibling set with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain when to snapshot and what is recorded. It leaves the agent guessing about scope, idempotency, and the effect of each optional parameter.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'reason' is documented as a commit trailer while 'message' has no description at all. The description adds nothing about either parameter (it never explains how 'reason' or 'message' shape the snapshot), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Logs a KB snapshot entry') plus a conditional side effect (a git commit), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as log_append or kb_repair, which is the only gap.

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?

Nothing tells the agent when to call snapshot rather than log_append, kb_repair, or kb_status, nor what prerequisites (a KB, git auto-commit config) must be in place. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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