infomaniak_get_swiss_backup_acronis_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description's 'Read' is consistent but adds no new behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or output specifics). It doesn't contradict annotations, but also doesn't enhance them.

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?

The description is a single sentence with a front-loaded verb and no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose.

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 only one parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks parameter semantics and differentiation from sibling Swiss Backup tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the required 'swiss_backup_id' parameter. The phrase 'for a Swiss Backup subscription' hints that the ID identifies the subscription, but the description fails to provide explicit guidance on how to obtain or interpret this value.

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: 'Acronis connection information for a Swiss Backup subscription.' This precisely identifies the tool's action and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_swiss_backup or get_swiss_backup_slot.

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 when to use the tool ('when you need Acronis connection info') but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Sibling Swiss Backup tools exist, yet no guidance is given on when to choose this over others.

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