export_snapshot

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does real work: it states the write target directory (.local/snapshots/), that the file path is returned, and explicitly that the operation is read-only with respect to the game — a key safety signal for a write-to-disk tool. It stops short of covering overwrite/collision behavior when a label already exists, which is the main residual unknown.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first covers action, destination, contents, and return value; the second covers the safety property. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is written, where, what the return value is, and the game-state safety profile. The only gap is on-disk side-effect semantics such as whether an existing file with the same label is overwritten.

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%, with the single optional label parameter fully documented including its length bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds little parameter meaning, only implicitly implying that the label ends up in the filename via 'snapshot label placed in the filename' being schema-side rather than description-side.

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 names a specific verb (write/export) and resource (a JSON snapshot of the current world) and enumerates the captured contents: time, squads, threats, economy. This distinguishes it from read-only reporting siblings such as get_changes or get_daily_report, which return data rather than persist a file.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer the tool is for persisting state to disk, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_changes or get_daily_report, nor any conditions or exclusions. Nothing is misleading, but the routing guidance is left to inference.

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