Snapshot List

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by explaining where snapshots come from (server-created before changes) and what they physically are (.drp exports). What it doesn't say — ordering, whether all snapshots or only recent ones are returned — is partly covered by the output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler: identity of the resource first, then the call-to-action and the sibling pointer. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The only residual gap is the default scope when `project` is omitted, a small omission for a one-optional-param read 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 coverage is 100% and the single optional `project` param is documented inline as "Only this project's snapshots." The description adds nothing about the filter or about what happens when it's omitted (presumably all projects), so this sits at the baseline.

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 names the resource precisely and characterizes what a snapshot actually is (timeline duplicates, .drp exports) rather than restating the title. Prefixing with "Safety copies ... this server took before changes" clearly distinguishes it from snapshot_write, though the listing verb itself is left implicit.

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?

"Use it to find the copy to go back to after a bad edit" gives a concrete trigger scenario, and it explicitly routes the opposite need to snapshot_write ("takes a new one on demand"). It stops short of stating when *not* to use it (e.g. broad inventory listing), but the alternative is named.

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