generate_nft_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'privacy-filtered' (プライバシーフィルタ済み) which suggests data is sanitized, but it doesn't explain what exactly is filtered, whether any data is mutated or destroyed by this operation, what the output format looks like, or any side effects. For a snapshot-generation tool, it's unclear if this creates a persistent artifact or just returns data.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficiently written with the key qualifiers (privacy-filtered, pre-mint verification). It doesn't waste words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that has a non-obvious purpose related to NFT minting, the description should explain more. It doesn't clarify the output (is it JSON? a file? a report?), what 'privacy-filtered' encompasses, or how this differs from the closely related sibling tools like preview_nft_data. The current description leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 100%, so the schema documents both parameters ('persona' and 'max_tokens_hint') with their descriptions. The description adds the notion that this is a privacy-filtered snapshot but doesn't elaborate on how the persona parameter affects the result beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: generating a privacy-filtered profile data snapshot for pre-NFT-mint verification. The verb (生成/generate) and resource (スナップショット/snapshot) are clear. It distinguishes from siblings like preview_nft_data and get_nft_listing by specifying the privacy-filtered and pre-mint verification angle, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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: pre-NFT-mint data verification. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_nft_data or get_nft_listing, nor mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a persona to exist first). The 'before NFT mint' context gives some guidance but no explicit exclusions.

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