List audit snapshot timeline entries to review commit-time audit history. Read-only operation accepts an optional limit and project directory for scoped queries.
列出审计快照时间线。只读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回最近 N 条（默认 10，0 = 全量） | |
| project_dir | No | 项目根目录（可选——默认当前工作目录） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description itself carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose the key safety trait '只读' (read-only). However, it does not describe the output shape, ordering guarantees, or any side-effect-free clarification beyond that one word, so transparency is only 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?
The description is two short fragments with no filler: it states the operation and the read-only behavior. Every word contributes, and the main verb and object are 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 simple read-only list operation with two optional, fully described parameters and no required inputs, this is largely complete. The main gap is the absence of any return-value description or output schema, but the tool's simple nature and the 'timeline' wording make the call behavior inferable.
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 both optional parameters and limit semantics (10 default, 0 means all). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline without enhancing the schema.
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 states a clear action, '列出审计快照时间线' (list the audit snapshot timeline), which names both the operation and the resource. This differentiates snapshot_list from its obvious sibling snapshot_restore, and the appended '只读' reinforces that it is a non-mutating listing operation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and no sibling is referenced. The read-only note implies safe invocations, but the description does not state that snapshot_restore should be used for restoration or when the timeline view is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.