repo_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description says 'Return' which aligns with these annotations. It does not add context beyond the annotations—no mention of what 'dirty status' means, how top-level entries are presented, or any edge cases. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate: consistent but not additive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only snapshot tool, the description is adequately complete. It names the four elements returned (branch, commit, dirty status, top-level entries). The absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool mean the description carries the full burden, and it does so sufficiently. Slightly more detail about the format of 'dirty status' or 'top-level entries' could push it to a 5, but it is not critically missing.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there is nothing to describe). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. No credit lost here.

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 returns repository branch, commit, dirty status, and top-level entries. It is specific about the resource and the data provided, distinguishing it from sibling tools like repo_read (which likely reads file contents) and repo_search (which searches). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as repo_read or repo_search. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this snapshot tool is preferable. The agent is left to infer its use case from the name and description alone.

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