List application restore points

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

Goes well beyond the provided read-only annotations by disclosing that the operation is free, returns a non-binding price and account-balance estimate, omits sensitive repository/archive/key/device/path details, returns the active restore after a client reload, and is initially Firecracker-only. It also details required auth scopes and emphasizes no funds are reserved or charged.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and remains information-dense, but the long compound sentences and jargon like 'opaque' reduce readability slightly. Every sentence still carries useful information, so it earns better than average.

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 adequately explains what is returned (restore points, price estimate, active restore) and covers behavioral and auth constraints. It provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds the scope ('one managed application') but no additional field-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('list') and a highly scoped resource ('opaque, unexpired nightly whole-VM backup points eligible to restore the exact current revision of one managed application'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic restore-point or snapshot siblings.

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?

Provides clear context and exclusions: it is for listing eligible application restore points, not for creating backups or charging accounts. It also notes platform constraints and required API key scopes, though it never names a sibling alternative for when this tool is not the right choice.

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