snapshot_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the content of the return value (snapshot metadata and browser connection status) but does not mention side effects, error handling, or any dependencies. For a read-only info tool, this is a basic disclosure, but it leaves some ambiguity around what 'browser connection status' entails.

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, succinct sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then packs the key fields into a parenthetical list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition. Excellent 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?

This is a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema. The description covers the main return elements (count, namespace, update time, kind distribution, browser connection status). While it could elaborate on the meaning of 'browser connection status' or the format of the output, the low complexity makes this description adequately complete.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. According to the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits any parameter-related details, and no additional meaning is needed.

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 that the tool returns the latest snapshot metadata (count, namespace, update time, kind distribution) plus browser connection status. The verb '返回' (returns) is specific, and the resource is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resources or get_all_cells, which focus on other types of data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the purpose statement, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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