studio_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: this is a polling data source whose sinceRevision argument enables incremental updates instead of full retransmission. It does not describe error behavior or the full-snapshot case when sinceRevision is omitted.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences that lead with what is read, then how to use it, then the key parameter. The final clause ("sinceRevision avoids retransmitting unchanged snapshots") is a fragment, but it is dense and earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back and it does by enumerating runs, evidence, settings, and human steering. Combined with the sinceRevision polling note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the default/omitted-revision behavior is unstated.

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?

With only one integer parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does explain it: sinceRevision prevents retransmitting unchanged snapshots, which conveys the incremental-pull semantics. It omits where to obtain the revision value (presumably from a prior response) and what happens when it is omitted, so it compensates only partially.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the resources returned: current runs, evidence, settings, and human steering. An agent can identify it as the snapshot/state reader. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling settings.read, which also implies reading settings.

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?

"Poll this data tool rather than reopening the UI" gives an explicit usage directive and names the alternative behavior (reopening the UI). It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer this over the sibling settings.read, so no exclusions are given, matching a 4.

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