get_snapshots

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already communicates that this operation does not modify state, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds return-shape context (name, snapshot_id, date) and scopes the operation to a VM, which is useful. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or behavior when no snapshots exist, but annotations carry the safety profile.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then compactly lists the output fields. There is no filler or repeated schema content, and the endpoint hint adds useful provenance without bloating the text.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description gives enough for correct invocation: what it lists, for which VM, and what fields to expect. It could mention ordering or empty-list behavior, but these are minor gaps for such a simple read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the property description already documents id as 'ID виртуальной машины'. The tool description repeats the VM scoping but adds no new parameter format, constraints, or default information. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 and resource: 'Список снапшотов виртуальной машины' (list of VM snapshots), and enumerates the returned fields: name, snapshot_id, date. This clearly distinguishes the read-only listing operation from mutation siblings like create_snapshot, remove_snapshot, and restore_snapshot. The parenthetical '(vm/get_snapshot)' does not obscure the meaning.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need the snapshot list for a specific VM identified by id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so agents must infer the contrast with snapshot mutation tools from the verb. This is clear context without formal when-not guidance.

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