pve_get_backup_job

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 behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get backup job configuration,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, returns detailed or summary data, or has any side effects like logging. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Get backup job configuration') that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of backup job configurations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the configuration includes, return format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with no output schema to compensate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Backup job ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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 'Get backup job configuration' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('backup job configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_backup_jobs' or 'pve_update_backup_job', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus listing all jobs or modifying one.

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. With siblings like 'pve_list_backup_jobs' (for listing all jobs) and 'pve_update_backup_job' (for modifications), the description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a specific job ID, or exclusions, like not using it for bulk operations.

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