tenki_list_dangling_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral trait that it filters snapshots by the non-existence of the source session, which is not captured by annotations. It also states the workspace scope. This is useful extra context beyond the structured hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, defines 'dangling' inline, scopes to the workspace, and adds a purpose. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description captures the core behavior and purpose. Missing details include pagination behavior and explicit alternative routing, but given the safety annotations and simple schema, the description is largely sufficient. A short note on page_token/page_size and a pointer to other snapshot list tools would make it fully complete.

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%: neither page_size nor page_token has any schema documentation. The description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or their purpose. While the names are self-explanatory for pagination, there is no detail on defaults, limits, or formatting. In a low-coverage case, the description should provide at least a mention, which it fails to do.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'dangling snapshots', and provides an inline definition ('those whose source session no longer exists'). It also scopes to the workspace and mentions the cleanup use case, which distinguishes it from other snapshot listing tools like tenki_list_snapshots or tenki_list_session_snapshots.

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 gives a usage hint ('useful for cleanup') but does not explicitly compare with sibling snapshot-list tools or state when NOT to use this tool. An agent may still infer it from the name, but explicit guidance about alternatives like tenki_list_snapshots would improve selection.

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