project_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as capturing state, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, but does not explicitly state safety characteristics or any side effects. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise with two short sentences and a helpful example. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence adds value, with no redundant text.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (implied by context). The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (info plus every layer) and its use case. For a simple tool, this is fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly omits param details. The baseline score of 4 applies as the description adds no param information, which is appropriate given no parameters exist.

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 captures the full project state, including info and every layer, in one call. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by equating it to merging project_info and project_list_layers.

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 advises using the tool as a reference point before risky operations like qgis_run_python or qgis_run_algorithm, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the implicit equivalence.

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