backup_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — omitting node falls back to the configured default — but says nothing about return format or pagination behavior for a listing tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is terse per-item. Slightly verbose in repeating the frame, but every line contributes meaning.

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 and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should ideally sketch what a listing returns, and it does not. It fully covers inputs, but leaves the return shape and filtering/response semantics unstated.

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 carries the full burden and does so well, documenting all four args: storage (storage id), vmid (optional guest filter), target (Proxmox target from config), and node (with the default-fallback rule). Format details are still thin, but each parameter's meaning is clear.

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 (backup archives) with explicit scope (on a storage, optionally filtered by vmid). The [READ] tag and the storage/vmid scope make it easy to distinguish from vm_backup (creation) and backup_restore.

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 implies the read/list use case and the optional vmid filter, but it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this over backup_restore or storage_content, both of which appear in the sibling list and also surface storage/backup data.

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