stone_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about whether omitting the name returns all snippets, how the name matches, or what the returned data looks like — leaving key behaviors for the agent to guess.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 tool with an undocumented optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain what the parameter does or what the agent receives back, so an agent must call it speculatively.

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 0%: the single 'name' parameter is a bare string with no description. The tool description never mentions the parameter at all, so an agent cannot tell whether it is an exact snippet name, a substring filter, or a category.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Show') with a specific resource ('the IDE's own ST code snippets') and clarifies the value proposition ('exact statement spellings'). That makes it distinguishable from lookup-oriented siblings like stone_api_search or stone_symbols, though it never explicitly contrasts with 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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical 'exact statement spellings' hints the tool is for confirming precise ST syntax, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over stone_api_search or stone_symbols, nor any exclusion guidance.

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