list_core_snapshots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key behavioral trait—that listing does not read the files' contents—which is useful. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like side effects, read-only guarantees, or performance beyond the implicit avoidance of heavy reads.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds a valuable caveat. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is complete for this simple list operation. It clearly explains what is listed and the key property of not reading large contents, leaving no significant gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema is complete. Per the guidelines, 0 params receives a baseline of 4; the description has nothing to add on parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('ExileAPI's .exapisnap files'), and it adds a distinguishing detail ('without reading their multi-gigabyte contents') that separates it from sibling tools that inspect or read snapshot contents.

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 phrase 'without reading their multi-gigabyte contents' clearly signals this is the lightweight option for enumerating snapshots, providing context on when to choose it over read/inspect tools. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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