get_snapshot_details

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what specific configuration fields are returned, or whether any permissions are required. The term 'get' implies non-destructive access, but lacks explicit confirmation or additional behavioral context.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it is somewhat terse given the lack of additional context.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what 'detailed snapshot configuration' includes and what the return value looks like. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns a structured configuration object. The description is minimal and does not cover the full context needed for 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 schema has one parameter (snapshot_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter's format, purpose, or expected values. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, the agent receives no additional semantic information beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed snapshot configuration, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('snapshot configuration'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like 'list_disk_snapshots' by focusing on a single snapshot's details, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other getter tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_disk_snapshots' or 'get_disk_details'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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