geck_object_snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' and the word 'snapshot' weakly imply a non-mutating operation, but the description does not state whether it refreshes the window, whether it is side-effect free, whether the window must exist, or how max_rows affects the capture. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though the brevity borders on under-specification, which is more appropriately penalized in other dimensions.

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, 0% schema parameter coverage, and many similar siblings, the description should provide substantially more context. It omits what backend means, what max_rows caps, whether the Object Window must be visible, and how this differs from geck_list_view_rows or geck_find_list_rows. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but it does not compensate for these gaps.

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 both parameters (backend, max_rows) are undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. The description explains neither: 'backend' with default 'win32' is cryptic without context, and 'max_rows' is intuitive by name but its relationship to snapshot behavior is unstated. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the property names.

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 phrase 'Read the current Object Window list rows' names a specific verb ('read'), resource ('Object Window'), and scope ('list rows'), so an agent can tell this is a data-retrieval tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like geck_list_view_rows or geck_cell_view_snapshot, so the differentiation work is left to the agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the Object Window must be open), and no exclusions. With multiple siblings that read list rows or take snapshots, the agent gets zero routing help.

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