snapshot_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'snapshot' parameter supports wildcards and '_all' for all snapshots, which adds some context. However, it doesn't describe what information is returned, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any error conditions—critical gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers parameter basics but lacks critical context: what information is returned, how results are formatted, whether it's safe/read-only, and how it differs from sibling tools. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity and missing structured data.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'repository' (repository name), 'snapshot' (snapshot name, optional, supports wildcards and '_all'), and 'verbose' (whether to show detailed information). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details like what 'verbose' entails.

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 '获取快照信息' (get snapshot information), which provides a basic verb+resource purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_snapshots' or 'snapshot_status', making it vague about what specific snapshot information it retrieves versus those alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cat_snapshots' or 'snapshot_status'. The description only lists parameters without context about appropriate use cases, leaving the agent with no explicit or implied usage instructions.

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