infomaniak_get_swiss_backup_slot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'Read.' It does not disclose response behavior, error conditions, or other constraints, adding zero value over the structured 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?

The description is a single sentence that is appropriately short and directly to the point, containing no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description provides the minimal necessary information for basic invocation. However, it omits any guidance on prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain the IDs) and does not clarify the relationship to list_swiss_backup_slots, making it only adequately complete.

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 mention the parameters (swiss_backup_id and slot_id) at all. The agent receives no contextual meaning beyond the bare parameter names, so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and identifies a precise resource ('one Swiss Backup slot'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_swiss_backup_slots and manage_swiss_backup_slot. The singular 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_swiss_backup_slots or get_swiss_backup. The description merely states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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