cross_repo_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it reads existing state, never runs analysis, and never writes. It also transparently reports how repositories without state are handled ('no data'), providing complete side-effect and edge-case transparency.

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 composed of two concise sentences that front-load the primary action (reads last run, returns coverage values) and immediately follow with the key behavioral caveat (never runs analysis or writes). Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or padding.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies the input source, the output content and ordering, and the handling of repositories without state. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe, but it does clarify the scope (all repositories in the registry), which is useful contextual meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 reads the last recorded run for each repository in the registry and returns coverage values sorted weakest first. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from analysis tools by stating it never runs an analysis or writes, 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?

The description provides direct usage guidance by contrasting with analysis: it reads existing state and never runs analysis or writes. This implicitly tells the agent to use this tool for quick read-only snapshots instead of triggering analyses, and the mention of 'no data' for unregistered repos sets expectations for edge cases.

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