workspace_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions '.gitignore filtering' which specifies a key behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., read-only, performance for large directories) or whether it follows symlinks. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Generate a snapshot') and adds the key filtering context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main output behavior (file tree with gitignore filtering), which is likely sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. Minor gaps: no mention of output format or depth limitations beyond the optional max_depth parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (root_path and max_depth are self-explanatory in the 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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and a clear resource 'snapshot of workspace structure (file tree with .gitignore filtering)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly analysis/design-oriented, making its purpose distinct and easy to understand.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (like get_coding_guidelines or parse_error_log). While it may be a prerequisite for workspace analysis, this is not explicitly stated, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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