sentinel_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool can optionally write to a file ('optionally write it to a file'), and the term 'snapshot' implies a non-destructive read operation. It also describes the contents of the snapshot, but does not explicitly state whether it mutates the model or require any permissions.

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 dense but highly informative, with three sentences that cover purpose, workflow, and value proposition without unnecessary padding. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses a clear analogy ('CI/observability for BI') to reinforce its role.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a complete picture: what it does, what it captures, how to use it in a workflow, and its optional side effect. No output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and the schema covers parameter specifics.

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 coverage is high at 80%, with descriptions for outPath, maxGroups, anchorMeasure, and maxValuesPerGroup. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only references the optional file write, which mirrors the outPath parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool takes a 'model integrity snapshot' and lists exactly what it captures: grand total, per-table row counts, per-group totals, and per-measure health. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling sentinel_diff by positioning the snapshot as the input for diffing.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Take one before and one after a refresh (or any change), then sentinel_diff them to catch a regression.' It also references the companion tool sentinel_diff and frames the tool as 'CI/observability for BI', thus specifying when it should be used.

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