backup_object_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. It does disclose that this is a READ operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential errors, permissions, or any side effects. For a read-only list, this level of transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 and front-loaded with '[READ]' and a single clear sentence describing the tool's purpose. The Args section is broken down neatly, and every line earns its place without unnecessary verbiage.

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 read-only list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meanings. It does not describe the return format or behavior on invalid input, but that is acceptable for a simple list operation. The description is self-contained and sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 must compensate. It does so effectively: 'backup_id: Veeam backup id (see backup_list)' and 'target: Veeam target name from config.' Both parameters are explained beyond their names, and the reference to backup_list adds useful context.

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 tool's function: 'List the protected objects (VMs/agents) inside a stored backup.' This uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('protected objects inside a stored backup'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like backup_list (which lists backups) and restore_list_points (which lists restore points).

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 provides a cross-reference for the backup_id parameter ('see backup_list'), implying that users must first obtain a backup id from backup_list. This gives contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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