list_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description is not solely responsible for safety disclosure. It adds some behavioral texture by enumerating returned snapshot details, but does not mention wildcard behavior, verbose mode, potential slowdowns, or repository access implications.

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 two tight sentences with every word serving a purpose. The key purpose and return information are front-loaded, and the usage hint appears immediately after the action.

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 tool has a read-only annotation, a present output schema, and a clear primary use case, so the description covers the most important operational context. It leaves the optional parameters underspecified but is not missing a critical decision point when the agent is choosing between snapshot-related tools.

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%, yet the prose only indirectly mentions the `repository` parameter via “in a repository.” It does not explain the wildcard behavior of `snapshot` or what `verbose` adds, leaving the two optional parameters underspecified in the very place the description was needed to compensate.

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 names a clear action-resource pair (“List snapshots in a repository”) and enumerates the meaningful output fields, so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related sibling `snapshot_status`, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It contains direct usage context: “Use this before restoring to pick the right snapshot,” telling an agent the ideal invocation moment. It does not give exclusion criteria or name alternatives, but the context is specific and useful.

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