job_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The '[READ]' tag and the enumerated summary fields add useful context (this returns summaries, not full detail), but nothing is said about pagination, limits, or failure behavior of listing.

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?

Short and front-loaded: verb-resource-fields first, sibling routing second, argument note last. No wasted sentences, though the 'Args:' block is slightly formal overhead for a single optional parameter.

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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it resolves the one ambiguous parameter. For a simple one-param read tool this is essentially complete.

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% and the schema only labels the param 'Target' with a null default, so the description carries the semantic load: it states it is a Veeam target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. That is the key operational detail an agent needs and is not available elsewhere.

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 and resource ('List backup jobs') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, status, lastResult), which distinguishes it from job_get explicitly. An agent can differentiate it from the sibling list tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes deep single-job inspection to job_get, and explains the target argument's default behavior. It does not say when to prefer this over other list tools such as backup_list or session_list, but the context is otherwise clear.

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