penpot_get_file_snapshot_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and does not modify the live file, which is the key behavioral trait. It also notes the return structure matches another snapshot tool. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination or size constraints, but given the read-only nature, the disclosure is adequate.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the main action and context, and the second adds a comparison and usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what is returned (full file content, pages, shape tree), that it is read-only, and its relationship to sibling tools. It is complete enough for a read-only snapshot retrieval tool, though missing details on snapshotId format are minor.

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. While the description implicitly references the parameters (fileId and snapshotId) by describing the action 'retrieve ... at a specific snapshot', it does not explicitly explain their meaning, format, or how to obtain them. This adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 retrieves full file content (pages, shape tree) at a specific snapshot for read-only inspection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like penpot_get_file_snapshot (same structure but from historical data) and penpot_restore_file_snapshot (for rollback), making the purpose specific and 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'for read-only inspection or comparison, without modifying the live file.' It also specifies when not to use it by pointing to penpot_restore_file_snapshot for actual rollback, providing clear usage context.

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