infomaniak_list_swiss_backups

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the fact that this is Acronis-based, which is contextual but not behavioral. It does not detail any potential edge cases, pagination, or response structure, but the annotations carry most of the load.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately brief for a simple list tool.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the resource type, scope (Infomaniak organization), and notes the underlying technology (Acronis). It could clarify the relationship to Swiss Backup slots, but that is not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The only parameter, account_id, is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its optionality and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists Swiss Backup subscriptions on an Infomaniak organization, with a specific verb and resource. It partially distinguishes from the sibling 'infomaniak_list_swiss_backup_slots' by specifying 'subscriptions' rather than 'slots', but it does not explicitly mention the distinction.

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 the tool is used to list Swiss Backup subscriptions, which is a typical read operation. However, it provides no explicit context about when to choose this tool over related siblings like list_swiss_backup_slots or get_swiss_backup, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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