capture_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the mutation scope (only .weft/warpline state) which is helpful, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. The third sentence ('loomweave command is server config') is obscure and adds limited transparency.

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 contains three sentences. The first two are concise and directly relevant. The third sentence ('loomweave command is server config.') feels disconnected and its relevance is unclear without further context. The description could be more efficient by dropping or explaining that statement.

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 8 parameters (1 required) and no description of their semantics, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists but is not shown; however, the description does not mention what data is returned. The domain-specific language ('loomweave edges', 'warpline') provides some context but not enough to understand parameter effects or execution outcomes.

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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'repo', 'commit', 'mode', 'changed_refs', 'if_stale_after', 'max_entities', 'dry_run', 'idempotency_key') are described in the schema or the tool description. The description adds no information about what parameters control, what values are valid, or how they relate to the tool's behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Capture dated loomweave edges into warpline's local store.') and differentiates from siblings by noting it mutates only .weft/warpline state, not a sibling repo. The jargon ('loomweave edges', 'warpline') slightly reduces clarity but the verb-resource pair is identifiable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The constraint 'Mutates ONLY .weft/warpline state; never a sibling repo' hints at scope but does not advise on prerequisites, context, or when not to use the tool.

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