restore_options

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it self-declares read-only, specifies ordering (newest first), and describes the return payload in detail, including volume locations and a fetch list of tapes to retrieve when no copy is in the library. It does not disclose behavior for unknown paths, result limits, or permissions, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the read-only safety signal and the core purpose in the first clause, then packs the return shape into one dense sentence. The long parenthetical listing volume attributes is heavy but arguably load-bearing for a restore decision; a small amount of compression is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly, including the fetch list that an agent would otherwise not anticipate. Gaps remain around edge cases (nonexistent path, empty results, whether `since` truncates the version list) for a tool whose output drives a destructive restore.

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 100%, so `path`, `since` (YYYY-MM-DD), and `client` (default localhost) are already documented; the baseline is 3. The description adds only the hint that `path` may name a file or a folder, and adds cross-tool meaning by linking the returned `start` field to `restore`'s `at` field, but explains nothing about `since` or `client` beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: every backed-up version of a file or folder, newest first, from P5's per-client backup index. It enumerates the returned fields and explicitly routes the restore follow-up to the `restore` sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from `restore`, `find_file`, and `restore_version` without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow guidance: use this to enumerate versions, then feed a version's `start` to `restore` as `at`. That establishes the when-to-use context and the downstream tool. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a catalog search or lookup tool instead), so it is strong but not complete.

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