rba_development_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 explicitly discloses that the tool does not execute the inspected script, which is a critical safety behavior. The term 'snapshot' implies read-only intent, but the description does not explicitly state read-only across all aspects (e.g., no state mutation, no network calls), though it provides a key non-execution guarantee.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly separates the snapshot contents from the safety note.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the primary source of invocation context. It lacks essential information about parameter semantics, expected output, and when to use the tool over the many related siblings, so it is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 20% (only scriptPath has a description). The description does not explain target, timeoutMs, includePing, or staleAfterMs, leaving their meaning ambiguous. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to add semantic value for the majority of parameters.

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 this is a combined development-oriented snapshot covering RBA health, crash likelihood, autoexec state, and optional static script preflight. It distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools like rba_health_check and rba_script_preflight by packaging these into one call, and it explicitly notes it does not execute the inspected script.

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 usage for development overviews (development-oriented snapshot) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over running individual sibling tools such as rba_health_check or rba_script_preflight. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this combined snapshot is appropriate.

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