project_snapshot

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining the snapshot as 'bounded' and by specifying exactly which data sources are read. This aligns with readOnlyHint=true and gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's scope without contradicting annotations.

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 well-constructed sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then efficiently lists the snapshot components. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 an optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns by naming each snapshot section. Together with the fully documented input schema and safety annotations, the agent has everything 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented with defaults and types. The description adds general context about snapshot content but does not materially deepen the meaning of path, include, or max_tree_entries beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('bounded coding-oriented project snapshot') and enumerates the concrete contents included: Git status, top-level tree, package/scripts, project type hints, instruction files, and Pilot GPT.md provenance. This clearly distinguishes it from granular sibling tools like git_status, read_files, or list_directory.

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 'in one call' implies the tool is meant for efficient project-wide orientation, and the enumerated sections suggest when it is useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer a granular sibling like git_status or read_files instead, leaving usage boundaries to inference.

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