backup_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '[READ]' prefix is a good explicit cue that this is safe and non-destructive, and the note about target being optional/defaulted adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination, error handling, permissions, or the exact structure of the response, which is a notable gap for a list operation.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sections. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and immediately follows with an Args block that explains the parameter. Every word earns its place, and it maintains a clean, scannable structure without redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, the returned fields, and how to use the optional target. It stops short of explicitly stating the return format (e.g., an array of objects) or pagination, but given the low complexity, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A little more detail would make it comprehensive.

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 schema provides no description for the 'target' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining it as 'Veeam target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare title and type, making the single parameter fully understandable. The description effectively bridges the schema gap.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('stored backups'), and the returned fields (id, name, type, creationTime). The '[READ]' prefix reinforces its non-mutating nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like backup_object_list or restore_list_points that operate on different scopes.

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 usage through its explicit purpose and explains the optional target parameter, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention backup_object_list as a more detailed option or restore_list_points for restore-specific views. This reliance on inference for tool selection results in a mid-range score.

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