driftguard_list_snapshots

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a scoped read of session-local snapshots, but says nothing about ordering, whether the list can be empty, or what happens to snapshots across sessions; for a zero-parameter read that is a modest but real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation, though it offers no elaboration that would help an agent predict the result shape.

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, parameter-free listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential who/what/scope. Return format and empty-state behavior remain unstated, which is the only notable omission.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The only semantic contribution is the implicit scope filter (current session), which is stated rather than parameterized.

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 and resource ("Elenca tutti i checkpoint/snapshot") and adds scope ("nella sessione corrente"), which separates it from the mutating sibling driftguard_create_snapshot. It does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing snapshots is naturally a pre-rollback or inspection step, but the description never says when to call it or when another tool (e.g. driftguard_create_snapshot, driftguard_rollback) is the better choice. An agent can infer the intent but receives no explicit routing guidance.

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