Capture an in-memory scene baseline before manual edits and return a snapshot ID with document/revision identity and object counts for later change comparisons.
Capture an in-memory scene baseline before manual edits. Returns only the snapshot ID, document/revision identity and object counts; use that ID with plasticity_changes_since or plasticity_wait_for_change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them — the snapshot is an in-memory baseline read of the scene, not a mutation. It adds real value by describing the payload scope ('returns only the snapshot ID, document/revision identity and object counts'), which compensates for the absent output schema.
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?
Two tightly written sentences, with the action and its purpose front-loaded and the follow-up usage trailing. No filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 usefully summarizes what is returned, and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has what it needs to call and chain the tool. The only gap is the undocumented 'label' parameter, a minor omission for a 0-required-parameter 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 single optional 'label' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so no semantics are added. Impact is limited because the parameter is optional and self-explanatory, which keeps this at the minimum-viable baseline rather than lower.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Capture an in-memory scene baseline') with an explicit scope and timing condition ('before manual edits'). It also names the downstream consumers (plasticity_changes_since, plasticity_wait_for_change), so an agent immediately understands this tool's role in the workflow.
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?
'before manual edits' states the intended moment to call it, and the second sentence tells the agent what to do with the returned ID, effectively routing to the two companion tools. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or statement of alternatives to this specific tool, but the workflow context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.