restore_list_points

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

The description clearly labels the operation as a read ('[READ]'), which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses a limitation: server-side filtering via backup_id varies by Veeam version. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job at conveying read-only nature and caveats.

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 and well-structured. It leads with a clear purpose sentence, then provides parameter documentation in a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no waste or redundancy.

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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies the output fields, parameter behavior, and default target usage. The mention of backup_list provides helpful cross-context. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: backup_id (optional filter, cross-referenced to backup_list) and target (Veeam target name from config, default behavior). This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 the tool's function: 'List restore points (id, name, creationTime, type).' The verb 'List' is specific, the resource is unambiguous, and the included fields add precision. There are no sibling tools that overlap with this function, so it effectively differentiates itself.

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 explicit context for use: it explains when to pass backup_id to filter, notes the preview feature and server support variability, and clarifies the target parameter's default behavior. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or direct alternatives, but the usage context is clear and sufficient.

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