Backup File Restore

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by specifying list and download actions, which are read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation: it clarifies the two operations but does not mention permissions, response formats, or side effects. Since annotations already cover the read-only nature, the description's contribution is modest but not redundant.

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 extremely concise: two short lines that state the purpose and enumerate the actions. It is front-loaded with the main intent and contains zero fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain which parameters are needed for each action (e.g., list likely uses 'path' while download uses 'filepath'), nor does it describe the return structure. Without this guidance, an agent may supply incorrect parameters or misread the results. The absence of an output schema increases the description's responsibility, which it fails to meet.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value only for the 'action' parameter by enumerating its values (list, download), which is helpful. However, it does not clarify how 'path' and 'filepath' relate to the different actions, or explain the purpose of node, storage, and volume beyond their schema descriptions. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description adds only marginal clarity.

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 purpose: 'Restore files from backup' and immediately specifies the two actions (list and download). It is specific about the resource (backup files) and distinguishes the two modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like proxmox_backup or proxmox_storage_content, though the actions make it clear it is about file-level operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when list vs download should be chosen, or any context about the backup storage. The only hint is the action enumeration, which is already in the schema. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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