list_snipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'View' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns real-time or cached data, includes pagination, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('View all scheduled snipe attempts and their status') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and gets straight to the point.

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 the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of its purpose. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks context on authentication needs, data format, or differentiation from alternatives, making it only minimally adequate for a simple read operation.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.

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 the verb ('View') and resource ('all scheduled snipe attempts and their status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_reservations' or 'snipe_reservation', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_reservations' and 'snipe_reservation' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for monitoring active snipes, historical attempts, or something else, leaving the agent to guess.

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