pve_snapshot_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the tool is 'read-only' and describes the output structure (including the synthetic 'current' node). It does not hide any side effects or prerequisites. Some details like error conditions or rate limits are omitted, but the core behavior is transparent enough for safe use.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and return data, followed by applicability and sibling pointers. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy or filler. This structure optimizes for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns (key fields), supported guest types, and how to act on snapshots. For a straightforward listing tool with well-documented parameters, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It reiterates that kind supports 'qemu' or 'lxc', but the schema already provides this. No new meaning or constraints are added beyond what the schema offers. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 'List a guest's snapshots (read-only)' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the returned fields (name, description, parent, creation time, synthetic 'current' node) and explicitly mentions it works for both VMs and containers. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_snapshot_create and pve_rollback, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 sets appropriate context by noting that the tool is read-only and directs the agent to use pve_snapshot_create or pve_rollback for acting on snapshots. While it does not list all alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, the guidance is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool versus its siblings.

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