list_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: the pvewarden=true marker and the pvewarden_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS naming convention that determines which snapshots are actionable by rollback_snapshot or delete_snapshot. The closing 'Read-only' sentence merely repeats the annotation, and scoping to a single guest is useful but no pagination behavior is mentioned (the output schema covers return shape).

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the marker semantics, then the routing rule. The final 'Read-only.' is largely redundant given readOnlyHint and is the only wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the one interpretive key an agent needs to act on that output: the pvewarden flag and its naming pattern. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing required to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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% with one documented vmid parameter, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the scope notion of 'one guest', which is a mild but real constraint; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list) and resource (Proxmox snapshots) scoped to one guest, and names the returned fields: name, creation time, description. The role of this tool relative to rollback_snapshot and delete_snapshot is made explicit, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings such as snapshot_guest or delete_old_snapshots without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage rule: call this tool to get the exact snapshot name before invoking rollback_snapshot or delete_snapshot. It also implicitly excludes the non-pvewarden snapshots by stating only pvewarden-tagged ones can be rolled back to or deleted, which tells the agent when this lookup actually unlocks an action.

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