Veeam server info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool gets identity info and serves as a connectivity test, but does not discuss other behaviors like auth needs or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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 sentence with a clear, front-loaded purpose statement followed by a usage recommendation. No superfluous words; every part 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?

No output schema exists, but description sufficiently explains return values (name, build/version, database info, API version). Given zero parameters and simple functionality, the description is complete and contextually adequate.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. Description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and return values beyond the empty schema, meeting the baseline of 4.

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 the tool retrieves VBR server identity including name, build/patch version, database info, and REST API version. It distinguishes itself by recommending this as the first call for connectivity and build version, differentiating from siblings like veeam_api_request.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to confirm connectivity and to learn which VBR build you are operating against,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling differentiation is implied.

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