export_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Full State Snapshot' reveals almost nothing about what the tool actually does, what data it returns, whether it is destructive, or what side effects it might have. The phrase suggests comprehensiveness but lacks concrete behavioral details.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than efficiency. A single vague noun phrase fails to provide any usable structure or information. It does not meet the standard of 'every sentence earns its place' because the phrase adds almost no value 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 an output schema, annotations, and detailed input schema, the description is the only source of context. For a tool that appears to export a full state snapshot, the description is completely inadequate—it does not specify what 'full state' includes, the format of the output, or any side effects. An agent would have no idea what to expect.

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, so there is no schema information to clarify. The rubric establishes a baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The minimal description does not detract from this baseline.

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 that essentially restates the tool's name, 'export_snapshot'. It lacks a specific verb or explicit action, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings that also inspect state (e.g., get_system_status, wm_status, get_metrics). The purpose is only vaguely implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_system_status or get_metrics. No context is provided for the intended use case, and the description does not mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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