hmc_list_vios_backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral details beyond that by revealing the underlying command (`lsviosbackup -id <vios_uuid>` over SSH) and the parsing of the fixed-width table into a list of dicts with keys (BackupName, Date, Type). This gives useful insight into how the tool operates and what to expect.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds execution and output details, and the third provides a prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler, and each sentence 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?

With a single parameter and an output schema already present, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, underlying command, output format (list of dicts with specific keys), and a pointer to obtain the required parameter. The mention of key names and the prerequisite makes it complete for this tool's scope.

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 provides zero description coverage for the only parameter (vios_uuid), but the description compensates fully by defining it as 'a given VIOS UUID' and explaining how to find it ('Find vios_uuid with hmc_vios'). This is essential semantic information that is completely absent from the schema, making the description the sole source of meaning for the parameter.

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 opens with 'List existing VIOS backups for a given VIOS UUID' which states a specific verb (List) and resource (VIOS backups), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hmc_backup_vios or hmc_restore_vios. It also identifies the scope (existing backups for a specific VIOS), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by stating the exact operation and the prerequisite: 'Find vios_uuid with hmc_vios.' However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is clear enough in context, but without explicit exclusion or comparison, it earns a 4.

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