backup_log_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, and the description corroborates it with a [READ] tag. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the truncation-detection mechanism ('one extra record is requested') and the exact return envelope keys, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits auth/rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the return shape, then args — a sensible hierarchy with no filler. The truncation explanation is slightly verbose for what it conveys, but every sentence is functional rather than redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return keys (logs, returned, limit, truncated) and their meaning. With annotations covering safety, both parameters documented, and truncation behavior explained, an agent has what it needs; only the structure of individual log entries is left unspecified.

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 carries the full load, and it mostly does: 'target' is explained as a Xen Orchestra target name sourced from config with an explicit omit-for-default rule, and 'limit' is described as max recent log entries. The default 50 is repeated from the schema, but the target semantics are real added value.

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 verb and resource: '[READ] Recent backup run logs: status + failed-task messages.' This is clearly a read-only log retrieval, distinguishable by resource from siblings like backup_job_list (job definitions) and backup_failure_rca (analysis). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of 5.

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 implied by the framing (fetch recent logs) and the description gives real operational guidance for re-running with a higher limit when truncated=true. However, it never states when to choose this over backup_job_list or backup_failure_rca, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is only partial.

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