qemu_snapshot_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds materially useful behavior: the result is QEMU's raw table output with the 'exact column layout isn't parsed here,' and the snapshots are 'internal' on the qcow2 disk rather than external. The one omission is what happens for a VM whose disk is not qcow2, so it falls just short of full transparency.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, why it exists relative to the load/delete tools, and the return-format caveat. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return fields, and the raw-HMP-output caveat covers the one thing the schema can't express. The remaining gap is the unstated meaning of the 'name' parameter for an otherwise very simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'name', so the description carries the burden, and it only implicitly conveys that 'name' identifies the VM via the phrase 'the VM's qcow2 disk.' It never says whether 'name' is a VM name, a disk path, or a libvirt domain, so the meaning is inferable but not stated.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List internal snapshots saved on the VM's qcow2 disk') and goes on to name the sibling tools it complements (qemu_snapshot_load, qemu_snapshot_delete) together with the implementation it wraps (HMP `info snapshots`). An agent can distinguish it from other snapshot tools without opening any schema.

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 states exactly when to call it: 'so you can see what tags already exist before calling qemu_snapshot_load or qemu_snapshot_delete, instead of finding out only from a failure afterward.' That is an explicit precondition plus the alternatives it supports, leaving nothing to inference.

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