salesforce_backup_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool listing system backups with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical operational context unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and what information it provides. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource (Salesforce backups) and the exact details included. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (simple list operation with no parameters) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does and what information to expect, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, response format, or error handling. For a backup listing tool in a Salesforce context, more operational context would be helpful.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds value by specifying what details are included in the response (timestamp, duration, file counts, sizes). This exceeds the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Salesforce backups') with specific details about what information is included (timestamp, duration, file counts, sizes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'salesforce_backup' (create backup) and 'salesforce_backup_status' (check status) by focusing on listing existing backups. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'salesforce_query' which could also retrieve backup data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., 'to see all backups at once' vs. 'salesforce_backup_status' for a specific backup) or any prerequisites. With multiple sibling tools related to backups, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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