slide_get_snapshot_service_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a non-obvious trait: this is a predictive evaluation of boot/mount success, not a list of currently installed services. But it does not disclose whether results are cached or computed on demand, authentication requirements, or error behavior (e.g., snapshot not found).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence where the main clause states verb+resource and the parenthetical earns its place by clarifying the tool's non-obvious semantics. There is no wasted wording. It could have included a brief usage-routing sentence, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low-complexity getter with one required parameter, no output schema, and no enums or nesting, the description is nearly sufficient: an agent knows how to call it and what the result means. Minor gaps remain — the shape of the returned verification results and whether verification is live or cached — but these are acceptable for this complexity level.

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%, with the schema already documenting snapshot_id as 'Snapshot ID.' The description adds no parameter-level detail — no format, constraints, or relationship between the snapshot and its verification state — so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('service-verification results for a snapshot'), and a clarifying parenthetical that explains the semantic payoff ('confirms which detected services would boot/mount successfully'). This parenthetical differentiates it from siblings like slide_get_snapshot (snapshot metadata) and slide_get_agent_services (detected services on an agent), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 parenthetical implies a use case — validating boot/mount success before relying on or restoring a snapshot — so an agent can guess when to invoke it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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