get_theory_snapshot_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. While it tells the agent the return content, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has any side effects. The verb 'Get' and 'snapshot' imply non-destructive behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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 compact, two short sentences, with no filler. It front-loads the action and then clarifies the return value.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides some essential return information but omits any explanation of the projectId parameter, what a 'world bundle' entails, or when to choose this over related tools. For a one-parameter tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 one parameter, projectId, but the schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not mention the parameter or how it affects the snapshot. The agent must infer from the parameter name that it identifies the project.

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 retrieves a snapshot of the current synthesis theory and enumerates the content (nodes, edges, evidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like revision or verification.

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 implies this tool should be used when a full view of the theory is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like graph_query_tool or get_hierarchy, nor does it state exclusions.

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