get_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the tool returns a compact state, but it doesn't specify the exact return format, pagination, or any side effects (though as a getter, likely none). It also doesn't mention any potential errors or exceptions. Given the lack of annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight beyond what the tool's name and schema suggest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It immediately states the action and the input requirement, then provides a helpful cross-reference. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is tight and front-loaded.

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 (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return type), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and how to get the necessary input. It doesn't describe the exact output structure, but the output schema likely fills that gap. The only minor omission is potential error cases, but that's not critical for a simple getter.

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%, and the description does little to explain the 'team_id' parameter beyond its name and requirement. The description mentions 'team ID' but doesn't provide additional format or context, such as expected length or format. Since the tool has only one parameter and it's straightforward, the low complexity mitigates the lack, but the description adds no real semantic value, so a 3 is fair.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('compact accepted state for one exact team ID'). It specifies the input (team ID) and the notion of a compact state, which helps the agent understand what it returns. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the term 'accepted state' and 'exact team ID' hint at a specific purpose, but a more explicit distinction from sibling tools like get_workspace_detail or get_run_detail would push it to 5.

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 a clear usage pointer by telling the agent how to discover team IDs via 'get_workspace_detail'. This is a strong cue for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other data needs, though the pointer to get_workspace_detail covers the prerequisite. It's clear but not exhaustive.

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