List system restores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' reasonably conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not add details such as whether results are paginated, ordered, or filtered, or what the response shape is. The docs link is useful but does not explicitly state those behaviors.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and only an authoritative docs link appended. There is no redundant phrasing, filler, or repeated schema content. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description plus docs link is largely complete: it identifies what the tool acts on and where to find deeper reference material. It does not explicitly state that the result is a collection, but 'List' strongly implies that, making this a minor rather than blocking gap.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to explain about parameter meaning or formats. The zero-parameter baseline applies here, and the description correctly focuses on the operation rather than inventing unnecessary parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Longhorn system restore operations'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as systemrestore_get, systemrestore_create, and systemrestore_delete. The Longhorn docs link reinforces the domain context without adding ambiguity.

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 verb 'List' implies this tool should be used for enumerating system restore operations, and sibling names imply alternatives for single-item operations. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus systemrestore_get or systemrestore_create, nor does it provide exclusion conditions. The docs link is reference material, not decision guidance.

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