Snapshot uncommitted work

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It discloses that it copies files, runs automatically at most hourly, keeps newest 10, and does not replace committing. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention details like permission requirements or exact cleanup behavior, preventing a perfect score.

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 very concise: three sentences, each adding essential information. The first sentence states the core action, the second covers automatic behavior and retention, and the third explains the tool's protection and limitations. No redundant or filler content exists.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the completeness of the description, it covers all necessary aspects: what it copies, where it stores, when it runs automatically, retention policy, and what it does not do. This is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, this is a 4.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy every uncommitted file into .slimdex/snapshots/<timestamp>'. It distinguishes itself from committing by explicitly saying 'does NOT replace committing', and it provides a concrete use case (insurance against accidental resets). This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like index_repo or changed_files.

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 a clear when-to-use context: 'as insurance against accidental resets' and 'Defeats a stray git checkout .'. It also mentions an automatic trigger when index_repo sees a dirty tree, and explicitly states 'does NOT replace committing', which serves as a when-not-to-use. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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