get_repository_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral specifics beyond annotations: it states the snapshot is 'immutable' and 'persisted', lists the exact fields returned, and describes the error condition (not_found). This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting 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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core action and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides usage context and error behavior. Every part 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 simple retrieval tool with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how it relates to creation tools, and the error condition. No missing information is needed for correct 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 documents both parameters with references to other tools (snapshot_id from create_repository_snapshot, repository_id from list_connectors). The description simply names the parameters in the first sentence but adds no new format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (persisted immutable repository snapshot), identifies the two required identifiers, and lists the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from creation tools by mentioning create_repository_snapshot and run_repository_pipeline, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this to re-read a snapshot created earlier with create_repository_snapshot (or through run_repository_pipeline).' This gives clear context and implies it is for retrieval, not creation. It also notes the failure mode for unknown ids, adding practical usage guidance.

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