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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool serves live snapshots from R2, supports filtering by spec or edition, and that it does not return historical copies. Although it doesn't mention side effects (likely none, as it's a read operation) or performance characteristics, the provided context is sufficient for safe usage.

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 remarkably concise, consisting of two sentences that provide all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds filtering details and differentiation from siblings.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (spec, edition, sha, fetched_at). It covers the purpose, filtering capabilities, and limitations (no historical copies). However, it omits potential details like pagination, rate limits, or default behavior when no filters are applied, but these are minor gaps for a listing tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: spec is an enum ('262' or '402') and edition is a string (with examples like 'main', 'es2026'). This goes beyond the schema which only lists enum names without context, and for edition merely specifies type 'string'.

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' and clearly specifies the resource: live snapshots (spec, edition, sha, fetched_at) from R2. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clause.get and spec.search by noting that historical SHA-pinned copies are not enumerated here.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to list live snapshots) and when not to (for historical copies), providing alternatives: 'Historical SHA-pinned copies are reachable via at: on clause.get / spec.search but aren't enumerated here.'

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