pve_list_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's only job is to add context beyond that, and it adds none: no note on ordering, whether running-state snapshots ('current') are included, or what an empty result means. For a read-only tool a 3 baseline is achievable, but this description contributes nothing behavioral.

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 with zero filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple read tool, though the terseness shades into under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with 0% schema description coverage the description should carry the parameter burden and doesn't. An agent cannot tell from the definition whether 'node' is needed for cluster setups or what 'kind' defaults to when omitted.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never mentions vmid (required), node (optional but practically needed to locate the guest on a cluster), or kind ('qemu' vs 'lxc'). The kind enum's meaning and the node/vmid relationship are left entirely to inference.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource ('List snapshots') scoped to 'a VM or container', which distinguishes it from the write-side siblings pve_create_snapshot, pve_delete_snapshot and pve_rollback_snapshot by name alone. It doesn't explicitly state how it relates to those siblings or to pve_get_vm, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent has to infer that this is the read counterpart of the create/delete/rollback tools. Nothing is said about prerequisites (permissions, whether the VM must be stopped, whether node must match the VM's host).

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