repository_state

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe-read profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add useful scope context ('for every repository') and names the returned metrics, but no auth, rate-limit, or freshness behavior is disclosed.

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 capability summary comes first, followed by an 'Args' block. The '[READ]' tag is mildly redundant with the annotation but harmless; nothing is wasted.

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 conveniently enumerates the returned fields (capacity/free/used/used%), which is enough for a single-parameter read tool. Only the routing versus the capacity-RCA sibling remains unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter alone, and it does: 'target: Veeam target name from config; omit to use the default' explains both the source of valid values and the default behavior. Only the exact expected format (e.g., name vs. ID) is left unspecified.

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 resource (repository) and a concrete output ('capacity summary' with capacity/free/used/used%), which distinguishes it from repository_list and repository_get. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling repository_capacity_rca, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only aggregate view of repository capacity, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over repository_get or repository_capacity_rca. The sentence about omitting target to use the default is parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance.

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