sysknife_snap_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description merely restates 'read-only' twice without adding context. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown or non-existent snap name, which is the main failure mode for an info lookup.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, but 'read-only' appears twice and the internal action identifier `SnapInfo` adds nothing for an agent; roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 simple read-only lookup with full annotation coverage, it conveys purpose plus returned fields, which is close to sufficient. The gap is the mismatch between the mentioned required `name` parameter and an empty schema, plus no note on unknown-snap behavior.

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 schema declares no properties at all, so the description's 'param: name*' is the only signal that a snap name must be supplied — genuine added value. It does not explain the expected format of the name or how it is passed, but it is the sole source of this 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('show snap details') and enumerates the returned fields (version, channel, description), which clearly separates it from sysknife_snap_list. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as sysknife_snap_list for enumeration or sysknife_search_flatpak_apps for discovery. The agent must infer the use case from the word 'details' alone.

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