snapshot_list

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the exact return shape (snapshots, returned, limit, truncated) and the meaning of the truncation flag. That extra return-value and result-cap behavior is genuine value beyond the annotation, though no pagination or permission notes are given.

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 purpose, then the return shape, then the args block — a logical order with no filler. The Args section largely restates parameter names, but each line adds a clarifying phrase, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by documenting the response envelope and truncation semantics. Combined with full parameter explanation and the read-only framing, an agent has what it needs, though limits/ranges and error behavior remain 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: dataset is explained with a concrete example ('tank/data'), limit is defined as max rows with its default, and target is identified as the TrueNAS target name from config. All three parameters gain meaning absent from the schema.

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 ZFS snapshots') plus scope ('optionally filtered to one dataset'), and the [READ] tag immediately separates it from snapshot_create and snapshot_delete. An agent can select it 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?

Gives clear operational guidance for the truncation case ('re-run with a higher limit or filter to one dataset'), which tells the agent how to follow up. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as snapshot_delete or replication_list, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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