topos_assess_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about blocked_by behavior for missing/expired snapshots, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description covers the main action, the comparison baseline, and error case (blocked_by). However, it does not describe the output or the status semantics referenced from topos_assess_improvement, which would be helpful for a complete picture.

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%; each parameter is described adequately in the schema. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but that is not necessary given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states that the tool assesses a file against a baseline snapshot, referencing topos_begin_refactor for the baseline and topos_assess_improvement for status semantics. This uniquely identifies its role among siblings.

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 usage after topos_begin_refactor and mentions blocking for missing/expired snapshots, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like topos_assess_worktree_change or topos_assess_changeset. No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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