agora_knowledge_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the agora_verified_snapshot provenance level is emitted only by AGORA's adapter boundary and cannot be supplied by a client. That is valuable trust/security context, but side effects, permission needs, and what object is persisted are still unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a clarifying constraint. No filler, though the second sentence is more implementation detail than invocation guidance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent unable to determine when to call this versus the sibling evidence tools or how role/claim_id affect the result.

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 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters. Only an implicit link between snapshot_id and 'KnowledgeSnapshot' exists; role and claim_id receive no meaning in either the schema or the description.

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 verb 'Materialize ... as Evidence' names a real action on a named resource (KnowledgeSnapshot), so the gist is inferable: it converts/emits a snapshot as an Evidence record. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy and never plainly says it creates an Evidence object, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agora_create_evidence or agora_attach_evidence.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of agora_create_evidence or agora_attach_evidence, and no prerequisites or trigger conditions are given. The second sentence hints at a constraint but is about provenance semantics, not about when to invoke the tool.

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