list_known_game_snapshot_paths

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only 'successful' paths are listed and that they are 'remembered locally,' which implies persistence and filtering. However, it does not explain the effect of the query parameter or any other behavioral details like sorting or error handling.

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 sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and scope. No wasted words.

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?

While the description captures the core scope (local, successful, current build), it omits the query parameter behavior and lacks any sibling differentiation. Given the existence of an output schema, return values are not needed, but the lack of parameter guidance and usage context leaves 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 input schema has one parameter 'query' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the description does not mention it. The agent is left without any clue about how to use the query parameter, so the description adds no value for 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 clearly states the tool lists 'successful bridge snapshot paths remembered locally for the current ExileCore build,' with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from sibling list_game_snapshot_path_profiles by focusing on paths rather than profiles.

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 guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as list_game_snapshot_path_profiles, read_game_snapshot_path, or inspect_game_snapshot. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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