liara_list_snapshots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a listing operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't elaborate on critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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, efficient phrase ('List VM snapshots') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and perfectly concise for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, output structure, pagination logic (how page/perPage vs. limit/offset interact), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (vmId, page, perPage, limit, offset). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'VM snapshots' relates to 'vmId'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 VM snapshots' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('VM snapshots'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'liara_create_snapshot' and 'liara_delete_snapshot' by specifying it's a listing operation. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all snapshots vs. filtered) or explicitly mention pagination, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a VM ID), differentiate from other listing tools (e.g., 'liara_list_backups'), or indicate when not to use it. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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