Snapshot the working tree

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a bounded, non-read-only operation. The description adds the scope (tracked + untracked files) but never explains what state the non-read-only behavior creates — where the snapshot persists, whether a prior snapshot is overwritten, or how expensive it is on a large repo.

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?

One sentence with the action and the downstream purpose front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With zero required parameters, no output schema and a trivial schema, the definition covers purpose, timing and downstream linkage adequately. The remaining gap is what the fingerprint operation actually stores and returns, which matters somewhat given readOnlyHint=false.

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 single `path` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that any path inside the repo works and that the server's working directory is the default. The description adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond that, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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?

It names a concrete action and resource — fingerprinting every tracked and untracked file in a git repository — and ties that output to a specific consumer, verify_changes. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the other verify_* and elliot_record_* siblings.

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 phrase 'before starting a task' plus the reference to verify_changes later gives a clear trigger and pairing. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. don't run mid-task or on non-git directories), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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