cantrip_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior at three zoom levels and mentions the 'project' parameter's override functionality, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure for a tool with multiple operational modes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality ('Browse project data at three zoom levels') and efficiently detailing each mode in a logical flow. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (three operational modes) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering usage scenarios and parameter interactions. However, it lacks details on output formats or error cases, which could be important for an agent invoking this tool without structured output guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of parameter combinations: it clarifies how 'entity_type' and 'entity_id' interact (e.g., 'entity_type only: list all entities... entity_type + entity_id: show full detail') and provides examples like 'icps', 'pain-points', which enhance understanding beyond the schema's generic 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse project data at three zoom levels' with specific details about what each level provides (project overview, list entities by type, show full detail for one entity). It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'This is the primary tool for listing and inspecting entities,' differentiating it from tools like cantrip_entity_add or cantrip_review.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'No args: project overview... entity_type only: list all entities... entity_type + entity_id: show full detail.' It also specifies when to use the 'project' parameter: 'Pass `project` to override `.cantrip.json` — useful in cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts,' offering clear context for alternatives.

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