snap_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond saying it returns a string list; it does not describe additional behavior such as remote-host requirements or failure modes. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a simple Args/Returns structure with no filler or redundant content. Every sentence earns its place for such a simple list tool.

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 tool, the description is largely complete: annotations cover the safety profile, the nested schema covers host and response_format details, and an output schema exists for return structure. The main missing piece is any explicit statement about when to use this instead of other package-related tools, but that is a minor gap.

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?

The description only lists parameter names ('host, response_format') without explaining their meaning, and the reported schema description coverage is 0%. It does not compensate by describing how to select a host or what response_format values do. An agent would need to inspect the nested schema definitions for actual parameter semantics.

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 in Hungarian 'Telepitett snap csomagok listaja' which clearly means 'list of installed snap packages'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like snap_install and snap_remove. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 used when you need to list installed snap packages, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It offers no comparison with related tools like snap_install or apt_list_upgradable, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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