snapshot_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the role as step 1 of a multi-step process and what it returns (sources + conflicts), which goes beyond annotations.

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-organized with clear sections (main purpose, WHEN TO USE, FLOW) and uses concise, direct language. While slightly longer than necessary, it efficiently communicates all critical information without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's placement in a workflow, what it returns, and how to proceed (synthesize and call save_snapshot). The absence of an output schema does not detract because the description implies the return structure.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'topic', and its description already explains fuzzy matching. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches citation bundles and conflict detection for a topic, with specific verbs ('Fetch') and resources ('citation bundle + conflict detection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_snapshot and accept_snapshot by explicitly outlining the snapshot generation flow.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states the tool is for generating a snapshot from inside Claude, providing clear context. It references sibling tools (save_snapshot, accept_snapshot) in the flow but does not explicitly state when not to use it, which is acceptable given the clarity of the flow.

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