snapshot_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior ('latest'), the return structure (metrics dict, hotspots, deltas), and error behavior (error dict if snapshot does not exist). This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only retrieval tool, though it doesn't mention performance or rate limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear paragraph plus param/return documentation. It is slightly verbose in listing the full metrics dict, but that detail is useful for an agent deciding whether this tool returns what it 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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the parameter, the return value, and error behavior. It could mention that the output is a JSON object and that deltas are computed vs previous and baseline, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but that is implied by 'show' and the absence of mutation language.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 'key' parameter, its default value, the special 'latest' value, and that keys are tree hashes from snapshot_list. This fully covers the single parameter's semantics.

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 purpose: showing full details of a specific codebase metrics snapshot. It specifies the resource (snapshot), the action (show), and the key mechanism (snapshot key or 'latest'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like snapshot_list and snapshot_diff by describing what it returns (full metrics, hotspots, deltas).

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 explains when to use this tool: to retrieve a specific snapshot by key or the latest one by default. It also tells the user where to get snapshot keys (from snapshot_list). It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like snapshot_diff, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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