layout_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful fidelity caveats (bounded export, reports what could not be captured, never claims complete restoration) that tell the agent not to trust it as a full round-trip. It omits that a mismatched expected_layout_id aborts the operation, though that lives in the schema.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the fidelity caveat immediately following. Nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the shape of the exported snapshot or what 'bounded' concretely covers, leaving the agent to infer the return. The honesty caveat about incomplete restoration partially compensates.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the required 'name' parameter has no description and the description gives no parameter-level meaning at all. Only target_id and expected_layout_id are documented, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented one.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (bounded chart configuration snapshot), so an agent can tell it captures layout/config state. It does not name how it differs from sibling layout_get or drawing_export, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'export a snapshot,' and the mention of uncaptured properties hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives like layout_get or layout_save.

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