snapshot_graph

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

The description states 'Mutates a single graph_snapshots row', directly contradicting the annotation readOnlyHint=true, which indicates a read-only operation. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load key information: what is captured, usage advice, side effects, and return format. Every sentence is necessary 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action, usage, side effects, idempotency, and return format. However, the annotation contradiction reduces overall completeness, and details about the 're-stamp' behavior on duplicate names are slightly ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing a clear explanation for the single parameter 'name'. The description adds no additional information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource 'current graph shape', listing specific metrics. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'later compare with diff_graph_snapshots', which is a clear sibling differentiation.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use as a checkpoint before/after a refactor' and recommends pairing with 'diff_graph_snapshots' for comparison. It offers clear guidance but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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