list_snapshots

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists snapshots, omitting any details about read-only guarantees, output format, ordering, pagination, or permissions. This lack of transparency is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core purpose without any waste. It earns its place by combining the action, resource, and context efficiently.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the returned list contains, how parameters affect behavior, or any prerequisites. The description is barely more informative than the tool name itself and fails to provide the context needed for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not explain the limit for controlling result size, the namespace for scope, or the required table_name. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely ambiguous.

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 'List Iceberg table snapshots for time-travel' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (Iceberg table snapshots) with a specific purpose (time-travel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like time_travel_query and time_travel_diff, which perform different operations on snapshots.

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 phrase 'for time-travel' implies the usage context—listing snapshots to enable time-travel queries—but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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