get_state_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that nothing is written to disk, that the return is a PNG of the live canvas including alpha, and a non-obvious behavioral detail that 'label' is logged but not drawn. It does not state that the call is side-effect-free/read-only, nor any cost or performance characteristics of returning a 512px raster.

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?

It is front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then parameters, returns and workflow, so an agent can stop reading early. There is mild redundancy between 'no file save needed' and 'without saving to disk', and the Returns/Parameters blocks partly restate schema defaults.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, full parameter semantics, the return format, and a realistic call sequence — enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is sibling positioning against get_image_bitmap and a clear statement that the operation is non-mutating.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the four parameters is explained beyond its schema type, including that image_index 0 means 'most recent', that max_size bounds both width and height in pixels, and a concrete region example. The label semantics ('logged but not drawn') correct a plausible misreading an agent would otherwise make from the bare schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a live visual snapshot of the current image state', and adds a scoping fact ('no file save needed') that separates it from export_image. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_image_bitmap, which appears to serve a similar visual-retrieval purpose, so differentiation is incomplete.

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 'AI agents call this to get immediate visual feedback after any edit operation' line plus the 6-step typical workflow give a concrete when-to-use context, including the zoomed-region inspection case. It stops short of any when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_image_bitmap or export_image instead).

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