read_game_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 mentions 'read-only' which implies no mutation, and 'manually captured' hints at a precondition, but it does not explain error behavior, output format, or any side effects. This is minimal compared to what a read tool with no annotations should disclose.

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 or repetition. It clearly states the action and object, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has two optional parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits usage scenarios, parameter details, and behavioral expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 description partially explains the 'section' parameter via 'or one shortcut section', but it never mentions 'max_characters' or clarifies the default behavior. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description should compensate, and it fails to fully do so.

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 clearly states the tool reads a manually captured, read-only ExileAPI game snapshot or a shortcut section. It identifies the specific resource and operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspect_game_snapshot or read_game_snapshot_path by emphasizing 'manually captured' and 'read-only', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many snapshot-related siblings. It lacks context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction to select it appropriately.

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