List restore points

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation and mentions the output's role. However, it does not cover potential pagination, error cases, or rate limits. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about response format or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and immediately useful guidance. No unnecessary words; every 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?

For a list tool with full schema descriptions, the description covers the core purpose and how to use it with restore tools. It lacks details on default ordering, response structure, or the effect of the limit parameter, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for nameFilter (finding points for a specific VM) but does not significantly enhance understanding of limit or platformFilter. It reinforces the purpose of the output but not the parameters themselves.

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 'List recovery points available to restore from' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning that restore point IDs feed restore tools, and it specifies filtering by nameFilter for a specific VM/machine.

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 usage context: filter by nameFilter for a specific VM/machine, and use the IDs for restore tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient given the tool's focused purpose.

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