repository_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the "[READ]" prefix is partly redundant. The description does add one genuine behavioral detail — capacity/free/used are returned "when known", implying fields may be absent — but says nothing about how a missing repository or unknown target is handled.

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-loads the one-line purpose before the Args block, and each parameter line adds information rather than restating the schema title. Slightly padded by the redundant [READ] marker.

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 low-risk two-parameter read with a readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, id provenance, and the shape of the returned capacity figures. The main omission is any hint of overlap with repository_state or failure behavior.

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 carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it identifies repository_id as a Veeam repository id obtainable via repository_list, and explains that target is a Veeam target name sourced from config rather than something the caller invents.

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+resource ("Detail for one repository") and marks it [READ], which separates it from repository_list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling repository_state or repository_capacity_rca, both of which sound like they touch repository detail.

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 parenthetical "(see repository_list)" usefully routes the agent to the sibling that produces the required id, which is real usage guidance. Beyond that there is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing between this and repository_state.

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