recovery_point_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 500 default cap and the fact that the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so a capped read is visible. This is exactly the kind of pagination behavior an agent needs.

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 the [READ] tag and the one-line purpose, then a compact per-argument breakdown. No filler sentences; slightly list-like formatting but every line earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-required-args list tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters, the return fields, and truncation behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only cross-tool routing guidance is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: `limit` is documented with its default (500) and truncation semantics, and `target` is explained as a Prism Central target name from config with the omit-for-default rule. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema types.

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+resource ('List recovery points') and even enumerates the fields returned (extId, vmExtId, create/expiration time, locationType), making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, snapshot_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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, no mention of alternatives like snapshot_list, and no conditions for selecting this tool over siblings. The only contextual note ('omit for the default') is about a parameter, not about when the tool is appropriate.

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