get_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a reasonable job: it discloses the no-map fallback payload (project structure, Git signals, test pairs), the exists:false sentinel, and that downstream tools remain usable. It stops short of stating read-only/reversibility guarantees or whether the call has side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the degenerate case. The trailing note about decision capture, get_context, and get_impact is somewhat tangential but still earns its place by reassuring the agent about downstream tooling.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it covers both the success and the exists:false paths. It is nearly complete for a simple one-parameter read tool, missing only explicit side-effect and permission statements.

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?

Only one parameter (dir) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or path-syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case for a fully covered single param.

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 ('Return') and resource ('optional feature-to-file architecture map with drift and trust evidence'), which an agent can distinguish from write-side siblings like save_snapshot or generate_snapshot_batch. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with read-side siblings such as get_context, get_impact, or full_analysis.

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 initialization required' is a useful prerequisite, and the exists:false fallback tells the agent this call is safe even on uninitialized projects. But it never says when to prefer this over full_analysis or analyze_project, so the routing decision is left implied.

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