pbs_list_snapshots

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

The description adds observable behavior beyond the annotations: results are 'newest first, capped at limit' and summary mode returns 'one aggregate row per group'. It also reveals output fields like 'protected flag' and 'last verify state', enriching the read-only and idempotent profile provided by annotations without contradiction.

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 description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output details, and the second sentence adds actionable guidance. No filler or redundancy; every clause 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?

The description covers the core behavior (list, ordering, limit, summary mode) and leverages the existing output schema for return-value details. It omits explicit mention of the filtering parameters, but those are documented in the schema; for a read-only listing tool with this complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 description explains the semantic highlights of `limit` (capped) and `summary` (aggregate row per group, preferred for overviews), but does not mention `backup_id`, `datastore`, or `backup_type`. Although the nested schema provides descriptions for most parameters, the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate more fully; partial coverage earns a mid-range score.

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 clear action ('List snapshots on a datastore') and enumerates the specific data returned (size, file count, protected flag, last verify state), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_list_groups by focusing on snapshots with per-snapshot details.

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 description provides clear usage guidance for choosing between detailed rows and aggregate summary rows ('Set summary=true ... preferred for overviews'), and explains ordering and limit behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is solid but not exhaustive.

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