Smart game snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific data categories captured and the round-trip behavior, but it does not disclose potential prerequisites, error behavior, or return structure. The added context is moderate but not rich beyond what annotations already convey.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and uses a compact, clear list of captured data. It contains no redundant or extraneous information, achieving high conciseness.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description must provide thorough context. It enumerates data categories but fails to describe the returned snapshot's structure, any prerequisites (e.g., a connected client), or the effect of configuration parameters. This leaves the agent without enough detail to confidently use the tool and interpret its output.

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 only 14% (only clientId has a description), so the description carries a heavy burden to explain parameters. It indirectly maps includeUi to visible UI and includeNearby to nearby instances, but parameters like maxUiItems, nearbyRadius, and consoleLimit are not elaborated. This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Capture' and enumerates exact resources (game info, player state, nearby instances, visible UI, recent console entries), clearly stating what the tool does. The phrase 'in one client round trip' distinguishes it from sibling tools by highlighting its composite nature, making its unique value immediately apparent.

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 implies an efficiency benefit with 'in one client round trip', suggesting use when multiple data types are needed simultaneously, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. This provides only implied usage context without clear exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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