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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is a compact list containing title, kind, reference, and date, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, read-only guarantees, or empty/error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that adds the key output fields. Every word earns its place, and no filler is present.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description explains both the operation and the returned fields. It could be more complete by noting when to use get_snapshot for full details or any ordering caveats, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already covers projectId with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'of a project' merely confirms the parameter's role and adds no format, source, or validation detail.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'snapshots of a project' and enumerates the compact fields returned. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_snapshot.

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 usage when a compact listing of a project's snapshots is needed, but it does not state when to prefer get_snapshot or mention any alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is only implicit.

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