list_application_snapshots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a useful behavioral trait. But it does not disclose details like return format, pagination, ordering, or whether in-progress snapshots are included.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.

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 one-parameter list operation, the description, combined with the schema's thorough parameter documentation, is nearly complete. Lacking an output schema, it could describe the return value more explicitly, but the tool's simplicity and sibling context make it sufficient.

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%; the parameter 'application' is already documented with explicit instructions to use the ID from list_applications, not the name. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshots') with a clear scope ('for an application'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling snapshot tools like deploy_snapshot_to_environment or create_snapshot_from_environment, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 purpose itself implies when to use the tool—when you need to list snapshots for an application. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., deploy/create/compare) might be more appropriate for a given goal.

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