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 usefully discloses the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, whether the list is scoped to a target, or any filtering 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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and one-line purpose, followed by a minimal Args block. Every line earns its place with no 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 single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the return fields, and the parameter's default behavior. It is sufficient, though the missing distinction from backup_object_list is a residual gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that target is a Veeam target name drawn from config and that omitting it uses the default. That adds real meaning beyond the bare anyOf string/null schema.

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 (stored backups) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, creationTime). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling backup_object_list, leaving the agent to infer whether 'backups' and 'backup objects' are distinct concepts.

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 [READ] prefix implies it is a non-mutating query, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer backup_object_list. The only usage hint is on the target arg.

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