snapshot_app_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral facts: the operation is non-disruptive (does not stop the app) and it has a session-state precondition. It omits where backups are written, whether prior snapshots are overwritten, and what happens on partial or failed capture, which are material for a write-to-disk tool.

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?

Two short sentences, both load-bearing, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the caveat. Nothing is padded, though the extreme terseness pushes into ambiguity rather than crispness.

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?

A filesystem-mutating tool with two required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more than two clauses. Critical gaps remain around the meaning of `directory`, backup naming/location, and result reporting, all of which the agent must guess.

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% for both required parameters. 'Explicit PRG basenames' hints that app_names must be exact file basenames rather than fuzzy or app-level names, but the more consequential parameter, `directory`, gets no explanation at all (destination of the backup? source path?). The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Back up only files matching explicit PRG basenames from simulator APPS.' The word 'only' plus 'explicit ... basenames' narrows scope in a way that distinguishes it from the sibling restore_app_files. Deduction because 'PRG basenames' is unexplained jargon an agent may not parse, and the title is null so there is no second cue.

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?

'Does not stop the app; use an idle/stopped session' supplies a precondition and implicitly points at stop_app as the prerequisite step. However, it never names that alternative outright, gives no guidance on the inverse case (when to use restore_app_files instead), and doesn't say what happens if the app is running.

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