snapshot_retention_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly states the tool is non-destructive ('never deletes anything') and reports a hypothetical keep/delete outcome, which are the key behavioral facts. It does not describe return shape or edge cases, but the core side-effect profile is transparent.

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 first clause is front-loaded and efficient, but the description then runs directly into a long 'Snapshot guide' list with missing punctuation, mixing tool-specific guidance with a family map. The guide may help orientation but reduces conciseness and clarity.

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 report-only tool with zero required parameters, the description is largely complete: it states the policy concept, the optional age dimension, and the non-destructive nature. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on the reported fields would help, but the response_format parameter and the schema cover the main invocation needs.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents playlist, keep_last, older_than_days, and response_format. The description adds only conceptual mapping ('keep-last-N' and 'optional age cutoff'), which is helpful but not needed to understand the parameters.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Report which snapshots a keep-last-N (+ optional age cutoff) retention policy would keep or delete.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from mutating operations with 'never deletes anything,' and the snapshot guide contextualizes it among create/list/read/diff/restore siblings.

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 that this tool is for dry-run retention planning ('would keep or delete' and 'never deletes anything'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus prune_old_snapshots or other snapshot tools, nor does it give exclusion conditions. The appended snapshot guide maps sibling operation categories but does not give selection criteria.

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