Get Backup Snapshots

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a non-destructive read, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds nothing beyond that, though: no indication of what a 'snapshot' represents, whether results are paginated, or whether any scoping/filtering applies.

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 short phrase, fully front-loaded with no filler or repetition. It is not verbose, though its extreme brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a strength of clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a zero-parameter read tool the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves the resource concept ('version/backup snapshot') and any retrieval semantics undefined, which is a real gap for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema has no fields for the description to explain, and the description correctly implies a parameterless list retrieval rather than contradicting the empty schema.

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 phrase '获取版本快照列表' names a verb (get/list) and a resource (version snapshots), which is enough to know it retrieves a collection. However it is terse and the resource label ('版本快照' = version snapshots) does not match the tool name/title ('backup snapshots'), leaving mild ambiguity about exactly what is being listed. No sibling differentiates it either, but none needs to.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. The agent must infer usage purely from the name. No prerequisites or context are stated.

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