snapshots_frankability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with ok and opIds array including opId, timestamp, files), clarifies that entries correspond to frank-audit ops that wrote files, and explains their role in rollback. It doesn't mention ordering or time window, but for a simple list tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 and efficient: three sentences plus a return format line. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what each entry contains, how the result is used with rollback, and provides the return structure. No critical information is missing.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the only parameter, symbols_dir, is not explicitly described. The description indirectly refers to it by saying 'for a Symbols project,' which hints at the parameter's purpose, but it doesn't state the parameter name or format directly. Minimal compensation is provided.

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 action: 'List recent snapshotted opIds for a Symbols project.' It specifies the resource (snapshotted opIds) and scope (Symbols project), and differentiates from the sibling tool rollback_frankability by explaining that the opIds can be passed to rollback to restore pre-state.

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: it lists snapshotted opIds from audit ops that wrote files, and explicitly mentions the next step of passing an opId to rollback_frankability. It doesn't state exclusions or when not to use, but the usage scenario is apparent.

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