vm_list_snapshots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns snapshot names and descriptions, and that it is a read operation. It does not mention whether it lists all snapshots, if it requires the VM to exist, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 very concise, consisting of a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of args. It wastes no words and front-loads the purpose with '[READ]'. Every sentence serves a clear role.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics: what the tool does, its parameters, and their meanings. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it among siblings, error handling, or what else the output might contain beyond name and description. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter: vmid is a numeric Proxmox VM ID, target is a Proxmox target name, and node can be omitted for auto-location. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's type information, though the explanations are brief and could be more detailed.

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 tool's purpose: listing snapshots for a VM, and it begins with '[READ]' to indicate a read operation. The verb 'list' and resource 'snapshots for a VM' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling snapshot tools like vm_snapshot_create or vm_snapshot_delete, but the name and description alone sufficiently convey its role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. For example, it could state 'Use this to view existing snapshots before creating or reverting' or contrast with sibling tools, but it does not.

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