get_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that verification is rechecked against sampled source contents, stale or unknown verification requires fresh review, and recordedVerdict preserves historical verdict. It also explains the fallback return shape (exists:false plus project structure, Git signals, test pairs) and that no initialization is required. This is substantial behavioral context beyond a simple 'get' operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral details and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds value, though the list of still-working tools (decision capture, get_context, get_impact) could be seen as slightly tangential. Overall it's well-structured and not bloated.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: what it returns, what happens when no map exists, verification semantics, and that no initialization is needed. It doesn't describe the exact output format of the map, but since there's no output schema, a bit more detail on the return structure could help. Still, it's largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'dir' is already documented as the absolute path to the project root. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond that, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning an optional feature-to-file architecture map with drift and trust evidence, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_context and get_impact. It also specifies the fallback behavior when no map exists. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for comparison, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve the architecture map with verification status. It also states that decision capture, get_context, and get_impact still work, implying this tool doesn't block those. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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