Get snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds optional api_key authentication and a ParameterError on invalid parameters, but does not describe rate limits or meaningful return behavior beyond a generic 'Response object'.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args list is compact and structured. For 22 optional parameters the length is largely justified, though the Returns/Raises boilerplate adds minor noise.

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?

Given 22 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does well on parameter meaning but only says the return is a 'Response object' and does not explain response shape or pagination defaults. Annotations cover safety, but result semantics remain underspecified.

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 compensate; it documents all 22 parameters with useful filter semantics such as exact match, icontains, startswith, ISO 8601 date operators, and pagination fields. It still leaves the page/offset/limit relationship and the id vs abid distinction somewhat ambiguous, so it is not perfect.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of snapshots'), so the basic purpose is clear. It does not distinguish this tool from the singular sibling archivebox_get_snapshot or other get_* tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 filter arguments imply that this tool is for querying/filtering snapshots, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as archivebox_get_snapshot. The agent must infer the distinction from the tool name and siblings.

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