working_tree_overlay

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

The description clearly states that this is an 'Advisory Reef mutation' and lists what facts are persisted (size, mtime, line count, sha256, deleted state) and what is NOT done (no AST, imports, routes, schema). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only provide flags), though it could mention whether the mutation is reversible or has side effects.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be more structured to include parameter roles, which would improve usability without adding much length.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, output format, prerequisites, and side-effect details, forcing the agent to rely on external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (projectId, projectRef, files, includeUnindexed, maxFiles). The mention of 'explicit files, watcher-dirty paths, or non-fresh indexed paths' alludes to filtering but does not map to the schema parameters. This is a critical 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('working-tree file facts'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings by stating what it does not do (AST, imports, routes, schema). It explicitly lists the fact types (size, mtime, etc.) and the scope (explicit files, watcher-dirty, non-fresh indexed).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_facts or file_edit. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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