pages_snapshot

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive/non-read-only. The description adds context about creating directories and overwriting existing pages.json, which are useful behavioral traits not fully captured by annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core action, and the second adds necessary context and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2 simple required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what files it produces, and when to use it. It lacks details on error handling or performance but is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 schema already fully describes the parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., the output file names are already in the schema decription for output_dir). Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'backup' and identifies the resource as 'all pages + per-page contents', clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'site_snapshot' by noting it is lighter and for page structure/contents only.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool over site_snapshot ('use this when you only need page structure and contents'). It also mentions that it creates directories if needed and overwrites existing files, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list prerequisites like needing the site name from a previous tool.

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