list_file_restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. Minimal information is given beyond the basic purpose.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about how parameters relate (e.g., how to find node, storage, volume) and does not mention prerequisites or typical workflows. Adequate but could be more helpful.

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 description coverage, the description compensates by listing parameters with clear one-line explanations (e.g., 'node: The node name.'). While it lacks details like formats or sources, it adds sufficient meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 action ('List files'), resource ('a backup volume'), and context ('for file-level restore (PBS backups)'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_backup_file_restore' and 'download_file_restore' by specifying the exact use case.

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 implies usage for listing files in a backup volume but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_storage_content' or 'list_backup_jobs'. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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