find_core_snapshot_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core matching behavior (all include, none exclude) but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what 'indexed' implies (e.g., pre-built index), or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that likely has no side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and criteria. There is no redundant or extraneous text, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

Having an output schema covers return structure, but the description leaves gaps about parameter usage (snapshot_name, limit) and lacks guidance on when to use the tool. It provides enough for a straightforward filter operation, but the missing parameter semantics and usage context make it only moderately complete.

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 0%, and the description only explains the semantics of include_terms and exclude_terms ('all include terms and none of the excluded terms'). It does not explain snapshot_name (which snapshot to search) or limit (result cap), nor details like case sensitivity or substring matching. The description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('indexed snapshot paths') with clear filtering criteria ('all include terms and none of the excluded terms'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_core_snapshots or inspect_core_snapshot, which focus on listing or inspecting snapshots rather than matching paths.

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 implies its usage for locating snapshot paths by term matching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. There is no reference to sibling tools or when-not scenarios.

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