acronis_fetch_resources

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context — and it adds little. It does not mention cursor-based pagination (after/before/limit exist in the schema), default page size, that deleted resources are excluded unless include_deleted is set, or any permission/tenant-scoping behavior. For a list endpoint with no output schema, these omissions leave real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding and no filler. It is efficient, though for a tool with a ~20-property nested query object the sizing is on the thin side rather than optimally balanced.

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?

The tool is complex (deep nested query object, many mutually exclusive filters, cursor pagination) and has no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what is returned or how paging works. Given only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should carry more of the burden for a listing tool of this complexity.

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 100% and the nested query object documents each filter, including mutual-exclusion rules, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only restates that filters are optional and adds no meaning about filter interaction or syntax beyond the schema's own documentation. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Lists resources") and clarifies the domain by naming examples (machines, mailboxes, other workloads), which is more than a tautology. However, it draws no boundary against close siblings such as acronis_fetch_resource (single item), acronis_fetch_resource_count, or acronis_fetch_agents, so the agent must infer that this is the general multi-resource listing call.

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?

"With optional filters" hints that this is a browse/filter operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no mention of the alternatives in a sibling set of 33 tools that includes fetch_resource, fetch_resource_count, and fetch_resources_with_top_severity_alerts. The agent receives no routing signal for choosing this tool over those.

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