snapshot_list

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

readOnlyHint=true is echoed by the [READ] prefix, so no contradiction. Beyond annotations it discloses genuinely useful behavior: the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so a capped read is visible, and it explains the default target resolution. It omits pagination/next-page behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the read tag and purpose, then a compact Args block. The wording is efficient with no filler, though the multi-line arg formatting is slightly verbose for a three-parameter tool whose schema has no descriptions.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the key return fields and the truncation indicators (`returned`/`limit`/`truncated`). Combined with full parameter documentation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination semantics beyond the capped-read signal are unstated.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for all three parameters: vm_ext_id is cross-referenced to vm_list, limit is given a default (500) and a truncation note, and target is explained as a Prism Central config name that can be omitted for the default. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a VM's snapshots), names the returned fields (extId, name, createTime), and gives a purpose tagline ('spot lingering snapshots'). It is cleanly distinguishable from siblings snapshot_create, snapshot_delete, and snapshot_restore.

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?

'Spot lingering snapshots' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for related tasks (e.g., snapshot_create/delete). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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