Get snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the error behavior (ParameterError on invalid params) and a vague note that the result comes from a GET request; it does not mention auth requirements or what a missing snapshot yields.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and Args/Raises sections that are tight. The Returns line ('The response object from the GET request') is essentially a tautology but costs only one line.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the returned snapshot; instead it only says it is the GET response object, which tells the agent nothing about the payload. For a simple two-parameter read with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but leaves the return value and auth expectations unexplained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and does document both parameters: snapshot_id as 'The ID or abid', and with_archiveresults as a flag for including archive results. The meanings added are real but thin, and the default value of with_archiveresults is left to the schema.

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 and resource – 'Get a specific Snapshot by abid or id' – which distinguishes it from the plural list-style sibling archivebox_get_snapshots. It does not explicitly name or contrast with other retrieval siblings such as archivebox_get_any or archivebox_get_archiveresult, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when to pick this over archivebox_get_any or archivebox_get_snapshots, nor when the id vs abid form applies.

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