snapshot_graph

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

The description states 'Mutates a single graph_snapshots row', which contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true. According to scoring rules, a score of 1 is assigned when description contradicts annotations.

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 sentences plus a compact JSON return type example. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the single parameter and presence of annotations (despite contradiction), the description covers the snapshot capture purpose, return structure, and idempotency. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, though the contradiction slightly undermines trust.

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% with one parameter 'name'. The description adds examples like 'before-refactor' or 'v1.2.0', adding meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is elevated to 4 for this added context.

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 clearly states the verb 'Capture' and the resource 'graph shape (file/symbol counts, edges by type, top in-degree files, communities, exported symbols)' under a named label. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'diff_graph_snapshots' by mentioning later comparison.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use as a checkpoint before/after a refactor; later compare with diff_graph_snapshots.' This provides clear when and when-not guidance, and names an alternative tool.

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