Get system restore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it doesn't state what happens if the name doesn't exist, whether there are side effects, or what authentication is needed. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 efficient sentence that states the operation and key parameter, followed by a documentation link. Every word earns its place and the core information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or error behavior, but it doesn't. The operation and parameter are clear, and the doc link adds context, but the agent is left guessing what the response contains or how failures are signaled. This is adequate for a simple get-by-name but not fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the required 'name' parameter is the system restore's identifier by saying 'by name', adding meaning beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema. However, it doesn't describe any constraints or format expectations for the name.

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 'Get a single system restore by name' uses a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'single... by name' clearly distinguishes it from systemrestore_list, systemrestore_create, and systemrestore_delete. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without needing to open the 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?

The phrase 'by name' provides clear context: this tool is for retrieving one specific restore when the name is known. It doesn't explicitly recommend list or other alternatives for discovery, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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