inspect_core_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool may 'build' or 'read' an index, hinting at possible side effects (writing/building), and that the table is 'bounded', implying a limit. However, it does not clarify what 'header-only' means, whether building is a persistent side effect, or any permissions needed. This adds some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the key action and resource. However, it is so terse that it omits important clarifications, so while it is appropriately brief, it sacrifices clarity at the edges.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is not sufficient. It does not explain what 'header-only' implies, how the index is built or read, the semantics of each filter, or how it relates to the many sibling snapshot tools. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format, but the missing input semantics and side-effect disclosure make this incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'matching archive paths' and 'bounded table', which vaguely relate to query, path_prefix, and limit, but it does not explicitly explain each parameter. For example, it's unclear whether 'query' is a substring search, whether path_prefix filters by directory, or how limit bounds the result. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema field names.

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 specifies a concrete resource ('header-only snapshot index') and action ('Build/read', 'return a bounded table of matching archive paths'). It distinguishes from siblings like read_game_snapshot by focusing on the index and paths, not full snapshot content. The dual verb 'Build/read' is slightly ambiguous but still conveys the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like find_core_snapshot_paths, read_core_snapshot_member, and list_core_snapshots overlap, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. The phrase 'header-only snapshot index' implies a specialized role, but it's not articulated as a decision guide.

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