bridge_snapshot

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly discloses the key safety property: 'never overwrites anything'. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it does not cover storage location or backup retention.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety guarantee is appended efficiently in parentheses.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema backup utility, this description is complete. An agent knows what action to take, what resource is affected, and that it is non-destructive. Nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation, but none is needed. The full behavior is expressed without parameter context.

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 verb+resource pair: 'Copy the current show .toe' to a 'timestamped backup'. The non-overwrite guarantee further sharpens the action. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bridge_save_increment, bridge_restore, and node_snapshot.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want a safe, timestamped backup of the current show. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so some routing burden falls on the agent.

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