backup_log_list

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses truncation measurement (one extra record) and return format. However, authentication needs, rate limits, and error handling are omitted, slightly reducing transparency.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) with a front-loaded summary line, example response, and parameter details. No superfluous words, well-structured for agent parsing.

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 read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers return format, truncation behavior, and parameter details. Missing error handling or authentication context, but adequate given simplicity.

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 coverage, description fully compensates: limit is 'Max recent log entries to return (default 50)' and target is 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds essential meaning beyond schema types.

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?

Description clearly states '[READ] Recent backup run logs: status + failed-task messages.', using a specific verb (backup_log_list) and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like backup_job_list and backup_failure_rca by focusing on run logs of individual backups.

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?

Description gives guidance on truncation (re-run with higher limit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as backup_failure_rca or backup_job_list. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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