list_snapshots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that snapshots are automatically captured before external API updates and can be used for restoration, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a read operation tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and the snapshot capture mechanism, the second specifies the return values. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about snapshot purpose and return data. It covers the 'why' (restoration) and 'what' (returned fields), but lacks details on output format structure or behavioral constraints like ordering or limits, which would be helpful for full completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'workflowId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List available config snapshots'), specifies the resource ('for a workflow'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on automatic snapshots captured before external API updates. It explicitly mentions what information is returned (snapshot ID, timestamp, changed fields), making the purpose specific and well-defined.

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 implies usage when needing to view snapshots for workflow configuration restoration, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restore_snapshot' or 'get_workflow'. It mentions the automatic capture context, which provides some guidance, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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