blender_list_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping detail ('configured artifact root') and confirms no arguments are needed, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose return format, ordering, or whether the list is empty-safe, but with strong annotations this is acceptable.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the no-arguments note is a useful clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not describing the return format (e.g., names, IDs, timestamps), but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a small omission. The sibling context (blender_restore_snapshot, blender_delete_snapshot) makes the listing purpose clear.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which removes any ambiguity about whether hidden or optional parameters might exist. This is a case where the description adds value by confirming the absence 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('snapshots stored inside the configured artifact root'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like blender_restore_snapshot or blender_delete_snapshot, but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying the scope ('configured artifact root') and noting it takes no arguments, which tells the agent it can be called without preparation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like blender_restore_snapshot or blender_delete_snapshot, nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing a configured artifact root.

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