repository_state

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

The description labels it as [READ], indicating a read-only operation, and specifies the output fields. However, it lacks details on error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but does not fully address these aspects.

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 concise, front-loaded with the [READ] tag and the core purpose. The Args section is structured and provides necessary parameter info without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and parameter meaning. It mentions the returned fields, though it could be improved by clarifying whether the output is a list or a single object. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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?

The description explains the 'target' parameter as a Veeam target name from config, with a clear usage instruction to omit for default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type information. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 clearly states it returns a capacity summary for every repository, with specific fields (capacity/free/used/used%). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repository_get and repository_list, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for capacity summaries but does not provide context for exclusion or comparison with sibling tools.

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