snapshot_menu

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description explains the source of that write (conditional on save_as) and the open-world scope (starting a process or hitting an HTTP endpoint). It does not cover failure behavior when a server fails to start, timeouts, or auth prerequisites beyond what the headers param implies.

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, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the conditional side effect. The parenthetical list of findings is dense but each clause carries information; minor cost from packing four distinct report categories into one phrase.

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 an eight-parameter, open-world tool with no output schema, the description does explain what is reported (readability findings, client breakage, prompt-cache risk, token cost) and when files are written. It is thin on what the report actually looks like and on error paths when the target server cannot be reached.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including cwd, env, url and headers. The description only adds the cross-tool meaning of save_as as a diff_menus baseline, which the schema partly states already; the other seven parameters get no extra semantic depth.

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 chain and resource: start or connect to a server, list its tools, report readability issues and token cost. It also pre-empts a misread of the name 'snapshot_menu' by clarifying the file is only written under a condition, so an agent can distinguish it from a pure file-producing tool.

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?

Clear context is given: pass save_as to produce the baseline that diff_menus consumes, and omit it for a read-only inspection. There is no explicit 'when not to use' and no routing away from explain_rule or check_session, so the exclusion half of the guidance is absent.

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