Compare two in-memory network snapshots

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the computation is mechanical and restricted to the current MCP process, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid/missing snapshot IDs or return format expectations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It immediately conveys the action and object, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return structure, but it only says 'field changes' without specifying format or error handling. The tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but given the missing output schema, the description is not fully complete.

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 only says 'between snapshots,' leaving before_id and after_id semantics to be inferred from names. It does not clarify which parameter is the baseline or their temporal order, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Return mechanically computed field changes between snapshots from the current MCP process' – a specific verb (return) and resource (field changes between snapshots). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like snapshot_network (which creates snapshots) and read_logs.

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 clearly indicates that the tool operates on in-memory snapshots from the current MCP process, implying a prerequisite that snapshots must have been captured. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so there are no exclusions.

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