list_backup_file_restore

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists files but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, required permissions, potential errors, or rate limits. The description implies a non-destructive listing but lacks explicit 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?

The description is concise: one sentence stating purpose and a short Args list. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameters. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., backup must exist) or return format, but the output schema likely provides that. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 compensates by listing each parameter (node, storage, volume, filepath) with a brief meaning. This provides basic semantic mapping beyond the schema, though it lacks details like format or allowed values. The default for filepath is noted.

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 lists files in a vzdump backup for single-file restore. It specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'files in a vzdump backup', and the context 'for single-file restore'. This distinguishes it from generic list tools like 'list_file_restore', though it could explicitly differentiate from siblings. Overall, clear and functional.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'list_file_restore' and 'download_file_restore' exist, but no comparison or context is given. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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