Export a complete snapshot of the current bio-hybrid neuromorphic simulation state, including SNN activity, telemetry, and ethics monitoring data, for external analysis or checkpointing.
Full State Snapshot
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description must disclose side effects, output behavior, and access requirements, but 'Full State Snapshot' says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what format is returned, whether data is persisted, or whether it requires special privileges. This is a total gap in behavior disclosure for a no-annotation tool.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a single noun phrase with no structure and no breakdown of behavior, output, or use cases. It does not earn its place because it conveys almost no useful information beyond the tool name.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter info, the description carries the whole burden of explaining the tool. 'Full State Snapshot' leaves the agent completely without context on what state is included, what the output looks like, how it differs from sibling state/status tools, or whether it is safe to call. The definition is inadequate for reliable selection and invocation.
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 has zero parameters, and the input schema shows an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no param detail, but none is required.
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 'Full State Snapshot' is a noun phrase echoing the tool name 'export_snapshot' with no verb, leaving unclear whether the tool exports, returns, or saves a snapshot. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_snn_state, get_system_status, or wm_status, all of which could plausibly provide state-related information. This is closer to a tautology than a functional description.
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 usage context is provided. The description offers no guidance on when to call export_snapshot versus alternatives such as get_snn_state, get_system_status, or get_platform_status. The agent is given no basis for deciding between overlapping sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.