recovery_point_list

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as [READ], discloses the return fields, and explains the limit parameter's reporting behavior (returned, limit, truncated). With no annotations, this provides good transparency about read-only nature and pagination behavior.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and outputs, subsequent sentences explain parameters. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return fields and parameter behavior. The tool is simple (list with two parameters), and the description adequately informs the agent. Could mention response structure but 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: limit (max rows, default 500, reports truncation) and target (Prism Central target, omit for default). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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' and resource 'recovery points', and enumerates the return fields (extId, vmExtId, create/expiration time, locationType). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_list or protection_domain_list.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar alternatives (e.g., snapshot_list, protection_domain_list). While the purpose is clear, no when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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