snapshot_note_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that snapshots scale token cost by tier (400/256/100 tokens), which is genuinely useful. But it omits whether the render is cached, whether it overwrites existing snapshots, permission requirements, error conditions, or side effects. Without annotations and with an output schema present, more transparency is needed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action; parameter documentation is compact and structured. The Args section is typical of docstring-style rendering and earns its place. Slightly verbose formatting but no wasted sentences.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the return format needn't be described. The description covers purpose and parameters but leaves behavioral traits (caching, overwrite, permissions) and usage context unaddressed. It's minimally viable but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents note_path with a format example and lists all three tier enum values with their token counts. This is substantial added value beyond the bare schema, though the tier parameter could note what happens if omitted (schema default 'base' fills that gap).

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 clear verb+resource: 'Render a markdown note to PNG snapshot.' This distinguishes it from read_note, new_note, and other note tools by specifying the PNG conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from read_note_as_image, a nearby sibling that also produces images from notes.

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?

The description explains 'for token-efficient storage' which hints at a use case, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description alone when this tool is preferable to read_note_as_image or other note-reading alternatives.

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