bridge_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does disclose the key safety behavior ('never overwrites anything') as well as how the detail and response_format parameters shape the output. It does not describe return-value content or failure modes, but the core non-destructive trait is well covered.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose plus safety in the first, then one line per parameter. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool (0 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, safety, and parameter semantics well. The main gaps are unspecified return-value semantics and lack of sibling routing, which matter more here because there is no output schema to fill those in.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters with their allowed values and concrete effects (e.g., 'summary (long lists cut to 25 + count)'). The only minor wrinkle is 'full (default)' versus the schema's null default, which is reconcilable but slightly ambiguous.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Copy'), a resource ('current show .toe'), and a destination ('timestamped backup'), plus a concrete safety guarantee ('never overwrites anything'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like bridge_snapshots (which lists snapshots) and bridge_restore (which restores them).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_snapshot, bridge_save_increment, or bridge_snapshots. The safety claim implies it is safe to call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing context.

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