list_backups

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool spans all backup-capable storages and includes scheduled job configs, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention additional traits like pagination or performance implications, but with the output schema present, the value is adequate.

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 sentences plus a brief Args block. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 has only one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/destructive behavior, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool returns (backup archives and scheduled jobs) and the filtering option, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter, vmid, as an optional filter to one guest's backups. This gives the agent all the semantic meaning needed to use the parameter correctly.

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 lists backup archives across all backup-capable storage and also shows configured scheduled backup jobs. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_backup (creation) and storage_content (general storage browsing) by specifying the backup-specific scope.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need to see backup archives or scheduled backup jobs across all storages. It mentions the optional vmid filter for narrowing to one guest. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

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