fleet_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a write action ('store a receipted fleet snapshot') covering all declared targets and that results include per-target status and freshness, but it omits permission requirements, whether prior snapshots are overwritten, failure handling, and cost or latency characteristics.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. 'Receipted' is slightly jargon-like without explanation, but the sentence remains efficient and action-first.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential action and a hint at returned content ('per-target status and freshness'). It still leaves important gaps around persistence behavior, returned snapshot structure, and operational safety, which matter more because structured metadata does not cover them.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input schema.

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 compound action (probe every declared target and store a snapshot) and names the resource (fleet snapshot). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling probe_target by operating across all declared targets, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'every declared target' versus the single-target probe_target sibling, but the description never states when to use this tool instead of probe_target, receipt_list, or target_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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