repository_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden. The '[READ]' tag explicitly signals a non-destructive operation, and 'when known' discloses that capacity/free/used data may be absent or incomplete. This is valuable transparency, though it stops short of detailing response errors or authorization needs.

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 extremely concise, starting with the [READ] flag and then providing a single-sentence summary plus an argument list. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the purpose, the key data returned (capacity/free/used), and parameter guidance. The lack of an explicit return format or error handling is a minor gap, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 explain both parameters: repository_id as 'Veeam repository id (see repository_list)' and target as 'Veeam target name from config.' This adds meaning beyond titles, but lacks specifics like value formats or constraints, keeping it at moderate usefulness.

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 states 'Detail for one repository incl. capacity/free/used when known' with a '[READ]' prefix, clearly indicating a read operation for a specific repository. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repository_list (list all) and repository_state (state-specific).

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 clear context by mentioning 'Veeam repository id (see repository_list)', implying the user should first list repositories to obtain the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools beyond the hint to repository_list.

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