rollback_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Lista' and 'Muestra', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. It adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the purpose and scope well. It could mention what fields are returned (e.g., snapshot IDs), but it is complete enough given the low complexity and lack of output schema.

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 input schema describes both parameters (limit, connection) fully (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Since the schema already handles the semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and identifies the resource 'rollback snapshots disponibles' (available rollback snapshots), explicitly stating it shows recent mutations that can be reverted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rollback_apply and history_list.

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 implies usage when you want to see available rollback operations before applying one, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rollback_apply or history_list. No exclusions or comparisons are given, so guidance is only implied.

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