backup_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation as 'READ', indicating it is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or the exact format of the returned data. The basic safety profile is communicated, but depth is lacking.

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 extremely concise: one line for the main action and a bullet list for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and informative. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basics of purpose and arguments. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, error states, or ordering. While functional, it leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer or discover via trial.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but explicit meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'storage' as 'Storage id', 'node' as 'Node name; omit to use configured default node'). This adds value beyond the raw parameter names, though it could include more detail on constraints or formats.

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 'List backup archives on a storage' with optional filtering by vmid. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (backup archives), and the sibling tools include related but distinct actions like vm_backup and backup_restore, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a '[READ]' prefix hinting at read-only use, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., storage_content) or any conditions that would make it inappropriate. The context is implied but not structured.

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