snapshot_files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the hash algorithm, that sizes are included, the workspace boundary, and that sensitive files are rejected — but does not define 'sensitive', say whether rejection causes failure or skip, or state that this is a read-only operation.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, and the core computation is front-loaded before the scoping constraints. Every sentence 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 annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain return shape and failure semantics. It names the outputs (hash, size) but doesn't describe result structure, partial results, or what happens to a call containing a sensitive path.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only a constraint on paths (must be strictly inside workspace) and says nothing about bundleId or workspacePath, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: computes SHA-256 hashes and file sizes for workspace files. Clear and distinct from sibling evidence-bundle tools, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling or contrast with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no alternatives. The only constraints mentioned (workspace-scoped, rejects sensitive files) describe behavior, not when an agent should choose this tool over capture_git_evidence or other siblings.

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