Snapshot Schema

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects. 'Take a snapshot' implies some persistence or state change, but it is ambiguous whether the tool is read-only or writes a stored snapshot. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary detail. It front-loads the action and resource, and the optional parameter is handled succinctly.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description is largely complete. It does not mention return values or output format, but with an output schema present, this is a minor omission. It could be slightly richer by naming the expected output type.

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 only parameter 'database' is well-described with its format ('type:name') and optionality (default null). The description fully clarifies the expected input, leaving no ambiguity.

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 action (take a snapshot) and the resource (database schema), and the phrase 'for later drift detection' distinguishes it from simply viewing the schema. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like schema_diff, so it misses full distinction.

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 provides only a vague purpose ('for later drift detection') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schema or schema_diff. It lacks prerequisites, context, or typical use cases.

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