list_vm_service_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: runtime CRD version discovery, the specific error when the Supervisor predates v1alpha5, and the truncation semantics (walked to completion, so truncated is always false). It stops short of stating auth/permission needs, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] marker and the core purpose, then detail; every sentence carries information. The dense parenthetical clauses (CRD version, envelope fields) are useful but slightly heavy, so not a 5.

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, the description compensates by spelling out the return envelope (items shape plus returned/total/truncated/served_version) and the error path for old Supervisors, and it covers the prerequisite and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented (namespace 'via list_namespaces', target defaulting to config.yaml). The description only restates the namespace source and adds nothing about the target parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (VirtualMachineSnapshot objects) with explicit scope (a vSphere Namespace), plus the CRD origin (vmoperator.vmware.com, v1alpha5). It names the sibling it is not (list_vm_service_network_interfaces), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Run list_namespaces first for the namespace' gives the prerequisite, and 'use list_vm_service_network_interfaces for a VM's NICs' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. No inference required.

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