snap_take

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that snapshots include memory while running, which is a key behavior. The allow_suspend parameter description reveals a significant behavior: it can suspend the VM, briefly pause the guest, drop terminal sessions, and reattach the debugger. This is excellent behavioral transparency for a mutation tool, going beyond just saying 'snapshot.'

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 concise, a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the sentence is somewhat terse and does not elaborate on the 'kd state' recording mentioned in the description; it says 'record description and kd state' but doesn't explain what kd state is or how it's recordedikuha, which could be confusing. It earns a 3 for being appropriately brief but not fully clarifying the tool's full scope.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, a special allow_suspend behavior, and a described side effect of reattaching the debugger), the description and schema together cover the essentials. There is no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The allow_suspend behavior is fully explained in the schema. What's missing is a mention of the kd state recording specifics, but the tool is still sufficiently documented for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds slight context: 'memory included while running' relates to the purpose of including memory, and the allow_suspend parameter is described in detail within the schema itself. However, the description above the schema does not add much beyond what the schema already explains, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Take a snapshot' of a VM, and includes a key nuance: 'memory included while running.' This clearly distinguishes it from snapshot operations that might not include memory, and the context of sibling tools (snap_list, snap_revert, snap_delete) makes the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from a hypothetical 'snap_create' sibling, but given the listed siblings, it is sufficiently distinct.

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 when to use it: when you need a snapshot with memory while the VM is running. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like snap_revert for reverting. The parameter 'allow_suspend' hints at a special case (encrypted VM refusal), providing some context, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over others.

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