project_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, local-read safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the snapshot content, but adds nothing about cost/latency, whether it shells out to git, error behavior for a non-repo path, or truncation of large diffs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then the payload items; every clause earns its place and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the snapshot contents, which is the key information an agent needs. It stops short of describing structure, size limits, or failure modes, and leaves the required 'path' argument entirely unexplained.

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 only 50%: the nested 'agent' object is documented, but the required 'path' parameter has no schema description. The description adds no meaning to either parameter — it never clarifies whether 'path' is the repo root, a subdirectory, or a working directory, so the gap is not compensated.

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 ('Collect') and enumerates exactly what the resource returns: repo root, git status, diff summary, recent commits, package scripts, package manager, and MCP-managed processes. An agent can immediately see this is an aggregate bundling the outputs of git_status, git_log, and process_list into one call, distinguishing it from those single-purpose siblings.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies the intended usage is to get broad context efficiently rather than calling git_status/git_log/process_list separately, but this is left implicit. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not wording, no prerequisite about running it from a repo, and no stated alternative tool for narrower needs.

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