repository_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. The description does add the concrete shape of the result (id, name, type, path), which is behavioral value annotations do not cover, but says nothing about pagination or filtering behavior on a potentially large repository list.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the verb, resource, and return fields come first, and the parameter note is second. The 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the one parameter's fallback semantics, and the returned fields. It is close to complete for this complexity level, lacking only pagination/scale hints.

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 parameter burden, and it does: it explains that target is a 'Veeam target name from config' and that omitting it falls back to the default. That is meaningfully more than the bare untyped string/null schema provides, though it doesn't give format examples.

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 repositories') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, path), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling repository_get, but 'List' vs 'get' plus the returned field set makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 only guidance is the optionality note on target ('omit to use the default'), which is useful for invocation but not for tool selection. There is no statement of when to prefer this over repository_get, repository_state, or repository_capacity_rca, leaving usage implied by the name.

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