list_snapshots

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

No annotations are provided and no output schema exists, so the description bears the full burden, yet it says nothing about ordering (newest first?), what identifies a version, retention, or access requirements for the shared project. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'List'. For a tool whose output must be fed into rollback_file, the missing shape of a version entry is a real gap.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the workflow hint second. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate on scope and workflow. It is incomplete on the one thing an agent actually needs next: what a returned snapshot looks like and which field is passed to rollback_file, especially with no output schema to fall back on.

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 both 'limit' (default 20) and 'file_path' (relative path) are already documented. The description adds no extra semantics such as whether file_path is required in practice or how limit interacts with version history; 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 ('List') and resource ('saved previous versions of a shared-project file'), which disambiguates the vague name 'snapshots' into file version history. It also implicitly separates it from list_files, list_locks, and view_changes, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly ties the tool to a workflow: call it before rollback_file to choose a version, which names the downstream alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., versus view_changes) or whether it works on unlocked files.

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