backup_log_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure and explains truncation measurement (requesting one extra record). This tells the agent that truncated=true means older runs exist, a non-obvious behavioral detail. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or authentication, but for a read-only log tool the core behavior is well covered.

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 purpose ('[READ] Recent backup run logs'), then immediately gives output structure, then truncation explanation, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is compact and well-organized for an AI agent to parse.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no required, no output schema), the description provides a clear output structure, parameter explanations, and critical truncation behavior. It does not describe possible errors (e.g., invalid target) or the internal format of 'logs' array, but for a straightforward list tool this is largely sufficient. The missing error handling and return structure details prevent a perfect score.

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 must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'limit: Max recent log entries to return (default 50)' and 'target: Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This provides semantic context beyond the schema (integer vs string/null), including default values and configuration dependency.

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 explicitly states '[READ] Recent backup run logs: status + failed-task messages.' This clearly identifies the verb (list/recent), resource (backup run logs), and scope (recent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like backup_job_list (which lists jobs) and backup_failure_rca (which analyzes failures) by focusing on raw run logs.

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 begins with '[READ]' signifying it is a safe query operation, distinguishing it from action tools (e.g., vm_start). However, it does not explicitly compare with other read siblings like backup_job_list or backup_failure_rca, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is implied but not explicit.

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