infomaniak_get_swiss_backup

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds 'in detail' and implies a single resource, but these are minor and largely inferable from schema/annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word adds value ('Read,' 'one,' 'in detail'), and it is front-loaded with the verb and object.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It lacks guidance on using list_swiss_backups to obtain the ID or what 'in detail' entails, though the output schema may cover return structure.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly describe swiss_backup_id beyond referencing 'one subscription.' The param name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, such as where to find the ID.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'one Swiss Backup subscription' and specifies 'in detail,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like listing all subscriptions or accessing slots/pricing. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you need details of a single subscription) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. No mention of 'list' to find IDs, though siblings are present.

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