Snapshot network graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the snapshot is 'compact, serializable' and includes structural issues, plus a behavioral caveat for include_params ('one request per node; capped for large graphs'), providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence efficiently communicates purpose, content, and use cases. No filler, front-loaded with core action.

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?

Given the output schema exists to explain return values, the description sufficiently covers what the snapshot contains. It could optionally mention relationship to 'diff_snapshots', but not required. Overall complete for a capture tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names. The description adds meaning for include_params by warning about per-node requests and capping, which is a critical detail for invocation. Without this, agents might not understand performance implications.

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 explicitly states it captures a compact serializable snapshot including nodes, connections, structural issues, and optionally parameters, with clear use cases (review, diffing, documentation). It distinguishes from siblings like 'diff_snapshots' (comparison) and 'get_td_topology' (likely real-time).

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 implies usage scenarios (review, diffing, documentation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_td_topology' or when not to use it. Lack of exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions.

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