snap_api_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces with 'Never writes' and, more valuably, adds the non-obvious constraint that only allow-listed paths are accepted. It does not disclose error behavior for disallowed paths or how results are truncated, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and the restriction front-loaded, then the parameter hint. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 an open-world passthrough tool with no output schema and only one-third parameter coverage, the definition leaves meaningful gaps: nothing about the response shape, pagination or truncation via `max_chars`, or failure modes for non-allow-listed paths. It is adequate to call the tool but not to predict its output or handle its errors.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by telling the agent to put query values in `query` rather than in the path. However, `max_chars` is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess that it caps response size, and no guidance is given on path templating syntax such as how to substitute {id}.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read-only GET against the Snap Marketing API) and scopes it precisely to requests that lack a dedicated tool, with concrete path examples. An agent can distinguish this escape hatch from the specialized siblings like snap_get_entity or snap_get_stats without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this for anything without a dedicated tool, which routes the agent away from this tool when a specialized one exists. The allow-listed-path restriction is also stated as a hard constraint. It stops short of naming which paths are actually allow-listed or what happens on a rejected path, so the agent cannot fully self-verify eligibility.

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