logicstamp_refresh_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is slow, generates structured data not raw source, and that the summary lacks component details. It also warns about the critical `projectPath` requirement and that omitting it causes hangs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention potential side effects like file overwrites, though it implies safety through auto-detection and cache cleanup options.

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 long but well-structured with emojis, bold text, and clear sections. It front-loads the critical warning. Some redundancy exists (e.g., multiple 'CRITICAL' markers), but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description covers everything adequately. It explains the tool's output (summary statistics, snapshotId), what it doesn't include (component details), and the next steps (list_bundles, read_bundle). It also addresses style metadata and depth parameter effects. For a complex tool, this is very complete.

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%, but the description adds substantial value beyond the schema. It explains the workflow, provides examples for depth, warns about projectPath being required despite being in the schema, and clarifies the skipIfWatchActive behavior. This exceeds the baseline expectation for a fully covered 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it runs `stamp context` to analyze React/TypeScript/Node.js codebases and generate structured context files. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use it versus `logicstamp_watch_status` and when to skip and use `list_bundles`/`read_bundle` directly.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (watch mode inactive, first-time analysis, after large changes) and when-not-to-use (watch mode active, skip and read bundles directly). It instructs to first call `logicstamp_watch_status` and names alternatives like `list_bundles` and `read_bundle`. The default `skipIfWatchActive=true` is explained.

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