pve_list_backup_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all backup jobs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes (e.g., list of names vs. detailed objects), or if there are any rate limits or pagination considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 'List all backup jobs' is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'backup jobs' entail in this context (e.g., Proxmox VE backup jobs), what the return value looks like, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool in a complex system like Proxmox with many sibling tools, more context is needed to be fully 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema already indicates no inputs.

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 'List all backup jobs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('backup jobs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_backup_job' (which presumably gets details of a specific job) or 'pve_create_backup_job' (which creates new jobs), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'pve_get_backup_job' (for specific job details) or 'pve_list_replication_jobs' (for a different type of job), nor does it indicate prerequisites or context for usage.

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