snapshot_status

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 states the tool returns progress details for ongoing snapshots, implying it's a read-only operation focused on monitoring. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, if it supports pagination or filtering beyond the optional parameters, and what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with the return value. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The only minor issue is the formatting with extra whitespace, but the content itself is efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent has incomplete information for reliable invocation, though the basics are present.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage (titles only). It explains that 'repository' and 'snapshot' are optional parameters and clarifies their purposes (repository name and snapshot name). This compensates well for the low schema coverage, providing essential context that the schema alone does not. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, keeping it from a perfect 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取快照状态' (get snapshot status) and '返回正在进行的快照的详细进度' (returns detailed progress of ongoing snapshots). It specifies the verb (get/return) and resource (snapshot status/progress), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_snapshots' or 'snapshot_get', which likely serve related but different functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'cat_snapshots' for listing snapshots or 'snapshot_get' for retrieving snapshot details), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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