list_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by ruling out mutation and disclosing that already-consumed snapshots are filtered out of results. It stops short of describing failure behavior on an uninitialized project or ordering/pagination of the array.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and negative scope up front, and every clause carries information. The middle sentences are semicolon-packed, mixing alternatives with prerequisites in one line, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

Single optional parameter, safe annotations, and an output schema that carries the return shape; the description covers purpose, exclusions filtering, prerequisite, and sibling routing, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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% with the enum documented, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by tying the project scope value to a precondition (initialization required) rather than merely restating the enum.

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 and resource ('Read created recovery snapshots in one scope') and explicitly negates the misleading sibling interpretations ('Does not create or restore snapshots'), which distinguishes it from rollback_scope and from creation flows.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use before rollback_scope to inspect available recovery points'), names an alternative for a related need (list_audit_events for operation history), and states a prerequisite ('Project scope requires initialization').

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