list_snippets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose 'Read-only' and clarifies that the related get command prints rather than executes, plus verbatim substitution semantics. It does not cover pagination/result-size behavior or any auth/permission context, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by placeholder semantics and the fill workflow, ending with the scoping note 'Read-only'. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; a minor trim of the shell-quoting aside would make it tighter.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies the key non-schema information an agent needs: the placeholder format returned and how to consume it. Return-row shape and paging are left to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents limit/query/detail/offset/parameterised_only fully. The description adds placeholder-output semantics rather than input-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 scoped to the user's own bookmarks ('List the user's bookmarked commands (snippets)') and further specifies what is returned ({{placeholder}} parameters, deduped in order with defaults). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_commands and recent_commands without needing to name them.

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 the use case (reading bookmarks that carry placeholders) and even describes the downstream step of filling them via `suv bookmarks get --set`. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (parameterised_only vs query filtering, or versus search_commands/recent_commands), so usage remains inferred rather than explicit.

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