repository_capacity_rca

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the output shape (per-repository capacity state, worst-first ordering), the threshold semantics (<15% warn, <10% critical), the cited measurements (free%, free bytes), and the recommended action. It omits pagination/rate/auth details, keeping it short of a 5.

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 [READ] tag and one-line purpose statement are front-loaded, followed by tightly scoped detail, and the Args block is minimal. The line-wrapped presentation is slightly longer than needed but no sentence is filler.

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 must describe returns — and it does, covering ordering, cited metrics, and the remediation action per finding. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit routing guidance versus the overlapping repository_state sibling.

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% and the 'target' property carries no description, but the Args block compensates by explaining that target is a Veeam target name from config and that omitting it falls back to the default. That is exactly the missing semantics the schema lacks.

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 — flagging backup repositories running low on free space — and immediately elaborates the exact analysis (worst-first capacity findings with warn/critical thresholds). This differentiates it from the plain-listing siblings repository_list and repository_state.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the capacity-finding purpose and the threshold description, so an agent knows roughly when this applies. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., repository_state) or states an exclusion, leaving the agent to infer routing against an overlapping sibling.

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