arch_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does step up by declaring 'Read-only', which is the key behavioral trait for this call. It does not cover whether snapshots are cached, how large responses behave beyond the schema's max_bytes, or whether workspace discovery can fail.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and payload, with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of being slightly cryptic, but every fragment 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the brief return-content list plus the read-only note are adequate. What is missing is orientation for a complex architectural tool: how it relates to arch_status and arch_diff, and what snapshot_id is used for downstream.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (scope, max_bytes, workspace) are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's '(scope=summary|full)' merely restates the enum and adds no new meaning.

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 names the resource (architectural snapshot) and enumerates the payload (stacks, git, graph, snapshot_id), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It never distinguishes itself from arch_status or arch_diff, so the sibling boundary is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether this is a first-call orientation tool or when to prefer arch_status/arch_diff. The only hint is the inline scope=summary|full, which is a parameter note rather than usage guidance.

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