get_process_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'bounded' and 'privacy-limited', giving some insight into result size and data redaction beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what 'privacy-limited' entails or how the bound applies, leaving some gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every term ('bounded', 'privacy-limited', 'process observations', 'one run') adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The presence of an output schema and strong annotations reduces the need for detailed return-value explanations. However, the description remains vague about what 'process observations' include and how this tool fits among many extract_* siblings, leaving the context incomplete for an agent to confidently select it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'bounded' for the limit parameter and 'for one run' for run_id, but does not explain the phase parameter or provide syntax/meaning for any parameter. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource 'process observations' scoped to 'one run'. It conveys the core function, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like extract_observations, so it lacks the explicit sibling distinction that would earn a 5.

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 such as extract_observations or get_trace_window. It only states what it does without any context for selection, so it fails to help the agent choose appropriately.

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