get_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the response includes '[INFO: ...] hints' and explains the line capture from 'the end of the screen and tmux scrollback.' The phrase 'without sending new input' signals a non-invasive read operation, though it does not explicitly guarantee that no state is modified.

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 highly concise: one line for purpose, one for usage, one for response behavior, and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content. The structure front-loads the most important information.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral hints, and parameter details. An output schema exists, so return-value formatting need not be described. It does not address error cases (e.g., invalid session), but this is a minor gap for a read-only snapshot tool.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the Args section fully compensates. It defines the required session_id format as 'user@host-<id>' and explains that lines controls 'Number of lines to capture from the end of the screen and tmux scrollback' with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource combination 'Get the current screen state of a session,' which immediately identifies the tool's function. The added usage note 'check on long-running commands without sending new input' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_command and send_keys.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to check on long-running commands without sending new input.' This provides clear context and implies that it is for monitoring rather than interacting. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but the context sufficiently separates it from input-sending siblings.

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