read_game_snapshot_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'safe' and 'remember it', which hint at validation and a side effect, but does not explain what 'safe' means, what 'remember' entails, or whether the operation is read-only. There is no disclosure of error behavior, permissions, or state changes beyond the vague 'remember' note.

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, front-loaded sentence of 18 words. It states the core action first and wastes no words. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain what a 'bridge snapshot' is, what 'safe dot path' means, why the path is remembered, or how this tool fits with the many siblings. The default max_characters parameter is also unexplained, leaving the agent underinformed for a tool with no annotations.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate. 'dot path' hints at the 'path' parameter, but 'max_characters' is completely ignored, and the description adds no details about parameter formats, limits, or interactions. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to clarify the parameters.

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 clear action ('Read'), a precise subject ('one exact, safe dot path from the latest bridge snapshot'), and an additional behavior ('remember it for this ExileAPI version'). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_game_snapshot' by focusing on a single path rather than the full snapshot.

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 'one exact, safe dot path' wording implies this tool is for targeted reads, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings like read_game_snapshot or list_known_game_snapshot_paths, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is present but only implicit.

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