prep_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses that it performs three parallel fetches and returns data for comparison. It provides an example of expected behavior (opponent 2 games vs general 8k) but does not detail side effects or permissions, which is acceptable for a read-only 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value, no waste.

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, but the description hints at return structure by naming the three data sources and gives a concrete example of comparison. It is fairly complete for the tool's complexity, though explicitly listing output fields would improve completeness.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It mentions the three fetches but doesn't elaborate on how parameters affect each. Baseline is 3, and no significant additional semantic value is provided.

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 states that the tool performs three parallel fetches at the same position, combining opponent stats, your stats, and general database. It distinguishes from siblings like get_position_stats by emphasizing the combined view and is specific about the resource and action.

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 explicitly advises using this while walking the opening tree for a single round trip instead of three separate calls, and gives an example of how to compare views. It implies the context of use but does not explicitly state when not to use or name specific alternative tools.

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