List Snapshots

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the output includes full snapshot contents, ordering, or default scope when 'project' is omitted. The phrase 'for the project' is ambiguous given the optional project parameter.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action.

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?

The tool is simple with full schema coverage and safety annotations, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return format or scope behavior. It does not, leaving slight ambiguity around what is returned and the project scope.

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 documents both parameters (limit and project) with 100% coverage, providing default values and optionality. The description does not add any semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'saved snapshots' and scope 'for the project,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_snapshot and diff_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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_snapshot or diff_snapshots. The usage is implied by the name and purpose, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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