snapshot_repo_state

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description does not add context about what destructive action occurs (e.g., overwriting existing snapshots). It describes the content being snapshotted, but no additional safety-relevant details beyond the annotation.

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 two crisp sentences: the first states the action and inputs, the second explains the purpose. No filler or repetition, making it highly efficient 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and rationale well. However, it does not mention what the snapshot does to existing vault content (relevant given destructiveHint) or what the tool returns, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description names the parameters (branch, dirty files, last commit) but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus meeting the baseline of 3.

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 function with a specific verb ('Snapshot') and resource ('current git state (branch, dirty files, last commit) into the vault'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on persisting state for later reuse rather than generic read/write/search operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Helps avoid repeating repo discovery across sessions') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This gives a strong sense of purpose without full exclusionary guidance, matching a 4.

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