get_restore_point

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Return') and provides an example for the restore_point_id parameter. No conflicting behavior is stated, and the tool is straightforward.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by three lines listing parameters with minimal explanation. No redundant information, and the main action 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential behavior and parameters. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a straightforward get operation, it is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters and notes that workspace and warehouse are 'name or GUID', and gives an example for restore_point_id. This adds basic meaning but lacks detailed format or constraints.

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 'Return a single restore point by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_restore_points (multiple) and create/delete/update (different operations).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_restore_points or get_warehouse. The description simply states what it does without context on appropriate use.

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