list_saved_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'does not change Live' largely repeats structured data. The genuinely additive disclosure is 'does not validate capture contents' plus the qualifier 'regular' files only, which tells the agent the listed names may include unusable captures - real behavior not captured by annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded before the caveat and follow-up hint. Minor awkwardness in 'regular local capture files' is the only blemish.

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?

A read-only enumeration tool with one enum parameter and no output schema; the description communicates that names (not contents) are returned and how to proceed. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though the discrepancy with the tool's own 'snapshot' naming could be clarified.

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%, so the schema supplies only bare enum values with no meaning. The description compensates by mapping those values to their libraries ('private track, device-chain, group-system, or MIDI-feel library'), giving the 'kind' parameter concrete semantics it would otherwise lack.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (names of regular local capture files) and enumerates the four libraries it covers (private track, device-chain, group-system, MIDI-feel). It is clear what the tool returns, though the name/terminology mismatch ('saved snapshots' vs 'capture files') slightly muddies the identity against snapshot siblings like save_track_state_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?

The closing clause 'load a name to inspect its format and contents' implies a follow-up workflow, giving the agent a reason to call this before loading. However, it does not explicitly name the load tool or state when this listing should be preferred over other enumeration tools, so usage is only implied.

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