List RE snapshots

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the limit of 20 and the fact that snapshots are kept in client memory. This gives a clearer picture of the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word adds meaningful detail without redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what is listed, the count limit, and the storage location. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating the format of the returned list (IDs, metadata, etc.), but the verb 'List' and context make this a minor gap.

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% (clientId has a description). The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema already documents the only parameter's meaning.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'reverse-engineering snapshots', and adds useful constraints: 'up to 20' and 'retained in client memory'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_re_snapshot or diff_re_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that capture_re_snapshot is for creating new snapshots or diff_re_snapshots for comparing them. The context is implied but not stated.

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