Snapshot status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Report' implies a safe read operation and it discloses what is surfaced (freshness and provenance), but it says nothing about whether the check is purely local, whether it can trigger a refresh, or what the response looks like.

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, both load-bearing: the first states what is returned and the second states when to call it. Nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description has to convey the value of the call, which it does by naming the two things reported (currency and source) plus the triggering situations. It stops short of describing output shape, but for a parameterless status check this is close to sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter behavior left for the description to clarify.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('how current the local Swizzler library snapshot is, and where it came from'), making the read-only diagnostic nature clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like diagnose_sync, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Two concrete triggers are given: when the user asks whether recipes are up to date, and when an expected recipe seems to be missing. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., diagnose_sync), which keeps it short of a 5.

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