meta_horizon_developer_collect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a prerequisite (authenticated browser via profile_dir) and a specific failure mode (ProfileBusyError when profile is locked), which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic purpose. However, it does not mention other side effects or security requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds essential context (prerequisite and error behavior) without any redundancy or filler. 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains profile_dir and the error case, but leaves app_id, snapshot_dir, lookback_days, and the overall snapshot payload ambiguous. Given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description does not provide enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter meaning. It only explains profile_dir in the context of driving an authenticated browser. app_id, snapshot_dir, and lookback_days are not described in the schema or the description, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 primary action — 'Collect allow-listed aggregate GraphQL Queries into a new snapshot' — using a specific verb (collect) and resource (GraphQL queries into a snapshot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like status and read_operation, which serve different purposes.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (creating a new snapshot), but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. The mention of needing profile_dir and failing with ProfileBusyError provides a prerequisite, but no direct 'use this when...' or 'use this instead of...' guidance.

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