sn_ops

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, notably that properties are returned with secrets masked, and it characterizes what health, jobs, and stats provide.

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 a single compact sentence, front-loads the resource, and then enumerates actions efficiently with no filler. Every clause maps to a supported action.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed, and annotations cover safety. However, for a multi-action tool with four params and 0% schema descriptions, the definition should explain level, limit, and source, and should give some sibling-routing context.

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 must explain the four parameters. It explains all five action enum meanings, but it leaves level, limit, and source completely undocumented, meaning most parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 gives a clear resource ("Instance operations") and enumerates the five concrete actions it supports, so an agent can infer it is an operational/diagnostic query tool. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as sn_admin, sn_state, or sn_journal, which keeps it below 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?

It lists action values, which helps choose the action parameter, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The internal action list is useful but does not substitute for tool-selection guidance.

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