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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful context beyond the annotation: snapshots are restorable states, and passing snapshotId returns recorded resources. This clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the optional parameter, then gives the usage alternative. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 low complexity (3 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all necessary usage aspects: the main action, the snapshotId behavior, and the distinction from record_snapshot. The 'Requires project context' note adds essential context. No critical information is missing for an agent to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for snapshotId by explaining it returns recorded resources, which goes beyond the schema's terse description. skip and take are adequately described in the schema, so the description does not need to elaborate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'snapshots', and defines what snapshots are ('recorded resource states that can be restored'). It differentiates from the sibling record_snapshot by explicitly naming it as the alternative for recording, making the 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to browse snapshots') and when to use an alternative ('to record a new one use record_snapshot'). It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context', giving the agent concrete guidance on when to invoke it.

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