layerfs_operator_inspect_snapshot

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description earns credit for explaining why a 'read' is non-read-only by disclosing that upstream discovery may reclaim stopped Sandbox records. It still omits what is returned, whether reclamation can affect running sandboxes, and why the tool is non-idempotent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then the delta mechanism, then the side effect. No filler, though the side-effect warning buried at the end arguably deserves earlier placement.

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 and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more: the return shape (history vs. workspace entries, the kind fields) and the scope of sandbox reclamation are unstated. The key non-obvious behavior (reclamation) is at least disclosed.

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 `since` parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry it and partly does by explaining it takes 'the previous version' and triggers kind=unchanged results. It never specifies the format of that version string or what happens on an invalid/stale value.

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 the resource ('project history and all live Workspaces') and an implicit read verb, but never says what a 'snapshot' inspection yields or how it differs from neighbors like layerfs_operator_workspace_changes or layerfs_operator_project_progress. An agent knows the domain but not the exact payload.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many sibling inspection tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the mechanical 'pass the previous version as since', which is about a parameter, not tool selection.

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