Get firecracker backup status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'nightly off-node' backups, the fact that a guest_agent attestation is only the guest's claim, that temporary VMs have no automatic backups, and the required services:read scope.

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?

Four compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and then layer caveats. Every sentence contributes, though the guest_agent attestation remark is dense and could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so adequately by naming running count and consistency provenance. It also states the required scope. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 single orderNo parameter is well documented in the schema (pattern, length, example). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get nightly off-node backup status for a Firecracker VPS') and enumerates what is returned (running count, latest retained backup's consistency provenance). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_firecracker_backup_history (history) and get_backup_status (non-Firecracker).

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 Firecracker/VPS framing implies the context, and the caveat that temporary VMs have no automatic backups is useful scoping. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_firecracker_backup_history or get_backup_status, so routing is left to inference.

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