Snapshot uncommitted work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that snapshots are copied to a timestamped directory, that the tool runs automatically with a rate limit, that the newest 10 are kept, and that it defeats 'git checkout .'. It does not explicitly mention deletion of older snapshots, but the retention policy implies it.

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?

Three dense sentences cover the core action, automatic behavior, retention, and a key caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the description is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when it runs automatically, how many snapshots are retained, and a practical limitation. The user can understand the tool's behavior and when to invoke it.

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, so the schema fully defines the input. The description adds relevant operational context (what files are copied, retention policy) rather than param details, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action ('Copy every uncommitted file') with a clear destination ('.slimdex/snapshots/<timestamp>/') and purpose ('insurance against accidental resets'). It also distinguishes the tool from committing by explicitly noting it 'does NOT replace committing.'

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 gives clear usage context: it runs automatically at most hourly when index_repo sees a dirty tree, and positions itself as protection against accidental resets. It does not name an alternative tool, but the 'does NOT replace committing' caveat provides a meaningful exclusion.

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