list_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond that: only identifiers come back (not full snapshot bodies) and results are ordered oldest first. It does not say whether the list is bounded, paginated, or how many snapshots are typically retained.

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?

It is short and free of padding, but it is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The ordering information is well placed, but a leading verb would cost one word and fix the fragment.

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-value detail is not required, and a zero-param read tool is simple. Still, for a tool whose only purpose is to feed IDs into diff_config, omitting that link leaves the agent to reconstruct the workflow from sibling names.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is fully covered and adds no competing detail.

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 fragment names the resource (saved snapshots) and states what is returned (IDs) plus ordering, so an agent can infer a listing operation. But there is no verb, no scope statement, and no differentiation from the closely related siblings snapshot_config and diff_config, which also deal with 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the natural follow-on (passing these IDs to diff_config). The agent must guess the workflow from sibling names alone.

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