restore_list_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]', indicating no destructive side effects. It also notes the variability of server filter support. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for invalid inputs, which would be helpful for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in brackets, followed by a concise explanation of parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It uses clear formatting with an 'Args:' section.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, return fields, and parameter usage. It misses potential details like pagination or default behavior when backup_id is omitted, but overall it is adequate for the complexity.

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 compensate. It explains that backup_id is 'Optional Veeam backup id (see backup_list) to filter by' and target is 'Veeam target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types. It references other tools for context.

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 starts with '[READ] List restore points (id, name, creationTime, type).' which clearly identifies it as a read operation for listing restore points with specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like backup_list (lists backups) and backup_object_list (lists objects within backups), which are different resources.

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 explains when to use the optional parameters: 'Pass backup_id to filter to one backup's restore points' and mentions a caveat about server filter support varying by Veeam version. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like session_list.

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