snapshot_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: the backup is opaque, and without a path it goes to a timestamped file in the cache directory. It does not cover potential errors or side effects, but the main behavior is well explained.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence action followed by a usage scenario paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool (one optional param), the description adequately covers purpose, default behavior, and usage scenarios. An output schema exists, so detailed return value explanation is not required. It lacks information about failure modes but is otherwise complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, but the description explains that without a path, the snapshot goes to a timestamped cache file, giving meaning to the optional path parameter. It could be more explicit about what path should be, but it effectively compensates.

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 writes an opaque .drp backup of the open project and returns the location. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_projects and open_project by focusing on creating a backup.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'before any big operation' such as builds, bulk media changes, or risky scripts. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls just 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.