snapshots_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: results are ordered newest first, and the call has two distinct modes depending on whether host is supplied. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only operation, whether any pagination or limits apply, or what authentication is needed.

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?

At one sentence it is appropriately short and the ordering hint is front-loaded, so it respects conciseness. The second clause is garbled enough that brevity has come at the cost of clarity, which keeps it from earning a 4.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only artifact an agent has. It omits the return shape (what fields a snapshot record contains) and the identifier format for the one parameter, leaving the definition under-specified for invocation.

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 the single optional 'host' parameter, so the description must compensate and it partially does: supplying host scopes results to that host's snapshots while omitting it changes the result set entirely. It never clarifies the accepted host identifier format, so meaning is incomplete but directionally useful.

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 conveys that this returns recorded snapshots (newest first) and implies a dual mode where omitting the host returns hosts that have snapshots. However the phrasing 'or the hosts that have any' is grammatically incomplete and never names the action as a list operation, so the purpose is inferable but not crisp. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling fleet_snapshot.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the related fleet_snapshot or fleet_changes tools, and no stated prerequisites. The implicit with-host vs without-host behavior is the only hint at usage, and it must be reverse-engineered from a cryptic clause.

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