pve_backup_freshness

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states it is a read operation, only counts archives on storage, and handles unreadable storage by returning unknown with complete=false. No contradictions.

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 detailed and front-loaded with purpose. While not extremely concise, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly shortened but effective.

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 has an output schema (context provided), the description covers key behavioral aspects: verdicts, failure mode, parameter overrides. It is sufficiently complete for selection and 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?

Schema has 3 params with 33% description coverage. The description adds meaning for max_age_hours and grace_hours (override and padding), but does not mention proximo_target. The added detail compensates partially, but one param is undocumented.

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 it is a 'Backup-freshness fence (read)' that walks actual backup archives and compares age against job promises, listing verdicts per guest. It distinguishes from sibling backup tools by emphasizing actual archive verification versus job status.

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 for verifying actual backup existence, not just job reports, and mentions override parameters. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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