vm_list_snapshots

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add one piece of behavior beyond the annotation: the shape of the return ('name + description'), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about error behavior when the VM or snapshots are absent, so it stays at a baseline-plus level.

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 one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; every line maps to a parameter or the output shape. The '[READ]' tag is mildly redundant with the annotation but costs almost nothing.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all three parameters (including the optional auto-locate behavior), and the returned fields. Only edge behavior (VM not found, empty snapshot list) is unaddressed.

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 document all three parameters in the Args block. The node entry adds genuinely useful semantics ('omit to auto-locate the VM') that the bare `default: null` schema cannot convey; vmid and target descriptions are terse but adequate.

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 and resource ('List snapshots for a VM') and adds the scope of the result ('name + description'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling snapshot tools (vm_snapshot_create, vm_snapshot_delete, vm_snapshot_rollback), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the snapshot siblings or vm_get/vm_config, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart to the create/delete/rollback tools purely from the name.

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