hcloud_list_cbr_policiesLists Huawei Cloud CBR backup policies by region, with pagination via limit and offset, to help AI assistants inspect available backup and recovery policies.
List CBR (Cloud Backup and Recovery) backup policies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| region | Yes | Region |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. Beyond expanding the acronym, the description adds no behavioral context: it says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or ordering of results, which matters for a list tool with limit/offset.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate 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?
With full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool. However, for a paginated list tool in a family with several CBR siblings, it leaves the agent without scope or routing guidance.
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 limit, offset and the required region are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CBR backup policies') and expands the CBR acronym, so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as hcloud_list_cbr_vaults or hcloud_list_cbr_backups, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling list tools for vaults or backups, and no stated prerequisite such as needing a region first. The agent must infer scope entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.