get_process_snapshot

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds 'bounded' (implying a limit) and 'explicit visibility coverage' (suggesting reporting of visible processes), which goes slightly beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify pagination, error behavior, or what 'visibility coverage' means, though these are less critical for a safe read 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. While structurally efficient, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary parameter guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description need not explain return values or safety. However, given four parameters and a required run_id, the description leaves the agent without enough information to construct a valid call. The lack of parameter semantics makes it incomplete for practical use.

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 explain all parameters. It only hints at limit via 'bounded', leaving run_id, phase, and cursor completely undocumented. A required run_id is not explained, making it impossible for an agent to know what value to pass. The description fails to compensate for the missing 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('process observations') with qualifiers 'bounded' and 'explicit visibility coverage' that indicate scoping. It is distinct from extraction tools (which trigger extraction) but does not name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about how it differs from read tools like get_run.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus extract_* or other retrieval tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of alternative siblings. An agent gets no context to decide between this and extract_observations or get_run.

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