get_game_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool is read-only ('Read state only') and implies a compatibility check/refusal for older bridges. However, it does not describe error behavior, return characteristics, or side effects beyond being read-only, leaving some ambiguity about what 'refuse' means in practice.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the second clause is dense and uses domain-specific terms ('older bridges', 'advertises passive snapshots') without elaboration.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational constraint: only use with bridge schema 2 and refuse older bridges. It does not explain the domain vocabulary, but the provided context signals and output schema likely fill in enough for an agent operating in this environment.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 reads state from a specific source ('bridge schema 2') and that it provides passive snapshots, which aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly compare itself to a sibling tool, but the 'state only' phrasing distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like execute_proposal or step_once. Some jargon like 'bridge schema 2' is unexplained, which prevents a top score.

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 gives a clear condition for use: only use with bridge schema 2 that advertises passive snapshots, and explicitly says to refuse older bridges before requesting state. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative tools or explain what to do instead for older bridges.

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