List Backup Groups

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining that groups are organized by backup type and ID, and by specifying the returned fields (type, ID, last backup time, backup count, owner). This provides useful behavioral insight without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose sentence, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every line is necessary, there is no filler, and the structure makes it easy to scan. It achieves high clarity with minimal words.

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 no output schema, the description properly documents the return value as an array of backup groups with specific fields. The input schema fully covers parameters, and annotations cover safety. For a simple list tool, this description is complete: it states what it lists, the parameters, and the expected output shape.

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 100%, with both 'store' and 'ns' already documented in the input schema. The description's Args section merely restates these definitions without adding syntax, format, or relationship details, so it contributes no additional value beyond the structured data.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'backup groups in a datastore'. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the organization by backup type (vm, ct, host) and ID. This clearly states the tool's function and 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 the tool is for listing backup groups, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other list tools (e.g., list_snapshots) or provide exclusions or alternative scenarios. Guidance is only implied through the resource type.

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