diana_model_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it discloses that the dpf_path branch spawns a short batch DianaIE, leaves the live session untouched, needs a free license seat, and takes ~30 s. Still missing where checkpoints are stored, whether labels can be reused/overwritten, and the memory cost of capturing every item.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the arg notes are scoped per parameter with no filler. The dpf_path note is a touch dense and line-broken mid-phrase ('the live session is not touched'), but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a two-param snapshot operation the description covers purpose, targeting, and side effects. Only the null-label behavior and checkpoint lifecycle details are absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description supplies all available meaning: label is the checkpoint name with a concrete example, and dpf_path redirects the snapshot to a saved project instead of the open model along with its costs. It does not say what a null label produces (auto-generated name?) or how checkpoints are addressed later.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a snapshot of the model (every item with all parameters)') plus the downstream consumer ('as a named checkpoint for diana_model_diff'). That contrasts clearly with the sibling diana_model_diff, which reads snapshots rather than creating them.

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?

It implies the when-to-use context through the label example ('before mesh refinement') and explains the alternative scoping mode for dpf_path (saved project vs. the open one). It stops short of explicitly saying whether to snapshot before or after a change set, or when not to bother.

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