snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states what the tool does, that the target must be running, and what it returns, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavior on invalid pids. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 short, focused sentences with no filler. The action, the required input, and the return value are each clearly stated and naturally ordered. Every sentence 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?

The description says what the tool does, what input it truly requires, and what it returns next for usage. The non-pid parameters are already fully documented in the simple schema, and the usage is a running output is a next-step hint. It is enough for a simple snapshot/analyze workflow.

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?

The schema already gives 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by making clear that a pid must be provided, even though the pid schema field is marked nullable. This helps the agent avoid relying on the null default.

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 a specific verb action ('Takes a memory snapshot') and a specific subject ('a running .NET process'), and it explains that the result is 'a snapshot id to pass to analyze.' This clearly positions it against sibling tools like list_processes and compare_snapshots.

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 usage context is clear: when a .NET process snapshot is needed, provide a pid and receive a snapshot id for later analysis. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow and prerequisites are unambiguous enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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