create_report_snapshot

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: snapshots are write-once, additive, not idempotent, and resolve to stable evidence over time. It also explains the return payload (snapshot ID, timestamp, hash, URLs), which is not covered by 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?

The description is five sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, return values, behavior, usage guidance, and differentiation. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values, including IDs, timestamps, hashes, and URLs. It also covers the tool's non-idempotent behavior, its relationship to sibling tools, and the reason to use it, providing a complete picture for an agent.

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 input schema already has full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does mention JSON and Markdown renderings, which aligns with the 'format' parameter, but does not introduce any new information beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('immutable evidence snapshot of the current Everything Report for a domain'), clearly distinguishing it from reading tools like get_report_snapshot. It also explicitly mentions when to use it instead of get_everything_report, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of get_everything_report when the result must remain stable' and 'use get_report_snapshot to read it back.' It also lists concrete use cases (tickets, audit trails, NIS2/ISO compliance, LLM citations), giving clear when-to-use context.

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