memory_snapshot_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does so well: it discloses the mutation of local files and Git state, the prerequisites (Git, writable storage), the returned fields (snapshot ID, commit hash, timestamp, message, counts), and the no-op behavior for overlapping/no-change snapshots. This is rich behavioral context rarely seen without 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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect before prerequisites, returns, and the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return payload and the no-op case, and covers prerequisites and side effects. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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% for the single 'message' parameter, so the schema already documents it as the snapshot description. The description only references 'message' as part of the return payload and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('current exported memory state') plus the concrete effect (writes state.json and commits in the snapshot directory's Git repo). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_export by routing JSON-only needs there, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (memory_export) and the exact condition that selects it ('when you only need returned JSON'). It also states prerequisites (requires Git and writable snapshot storage), giving clear context for when this tool is applicable versus its sibling.

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