shadow_review_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Write' is consistent with a non-read mutation. It adds the output format (markdown) and content (shadow-review telemetry), but says nothing about overwrite behavior or permissions beyond what annotations imply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, efficiently stating verb, resource, and output format. It is appropriately sized but ends there without elaboration.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a write tool the description omits usage context and any detail about snapshot_path, leaving it barely adequate.

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 0% for the single required parameter snapshot_path. The description implies the snapshot is written as markdown but never explains what the path represents (directory, filename, format) or its constraints, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('current shadow-review telemetry as a markdown snapshot'), so an agent can tell it apart from shadow_review_status or shadow_review_run. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the action is concrete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus shadow_review_status or shadow_review_run, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the trigger context entirely.

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