snapshot_object

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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond the schema: snapshots live in the game process, survive UEB.reload() but not a game restart, reusing a label replaces the snapshot, and the return value includes a wall-clock timestamp. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention whether the operation is read-only in more explicit terms.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral details in a structured way. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second explains the relationship to siblings, the third covers storage semantics, and the fourth covers return value and lifecycle.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what it does, how it relates to siblings, what parameters are stored, what the return value contains, and the snapshot lifecycle. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact format of ref, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that include_super and pattern are stored with the snapshot and affect the diff re-walk, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions. It does not explicitly define ref or label, but their names and the description's context make them reasonably clear.

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 clearly states the tool walks an object's reflected properties and stores the result under a label, explicitly distinguishing it from inspect_object and positioning it as the companion to diff_object. The verb 'walk' plus the resource ('object's reflected properties') and the storage behavior make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says this is the same walk as inspect_object but kept for diff_object, and explains that include_super and pattern are stored with the snapshot so the diff re-walks the same set. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly distinguishes it from inspect_object and diff_object.

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