semantic_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Return' is consistent with a read-only operation. It adds context by specifying 'program-only semantic JSON', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output size, determinism, or any side effects. The description aligns with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and immediately specifies the output type. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 the tool has one simple parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is returned and for what purpose. However, it does not clarify how this differs from a full project snapshot or mention any caveats, leaving a small gap in context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter project_id, and the description does not elaborate on its meaning or format. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer the expected value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return program-only semantic JSON' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes the purpose ('suitable for AI review or external versioning'), which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like project_diff or save_cxt, though 'program-only' hints at a narrower scope.

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 implied use cases ('suitable for AI review or external versioning') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of when not to use it or comparisons with sibling tools such as project_diff, save_cxt, or project_summary.

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