list_article_backups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — the returned versions exclude content, which sets expectations for payload size — but says nothing about permissions, ordering, or pagination limits. The output schema covers return shape, so the remaining gaps are modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope restriction is attached directly to the verb, so the agent gets the essential information on the first read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with two required parameters undocumented in both schema and description and no annotations to convey safety or behavior, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent invoking 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% — both parameters have only bare titles ("Article Id", "Project Id"). The description does not mention either parameter or clarify which project/article the versions belong to, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (saved editor and CMS versions/backups), plus a scope qualifier ("without their content") that tells the agent what it will and won't get. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_article_backup, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: listing versions before fetching or restoring one is the obvious context, and "without their content" hints this is the lightweight discovery step preceding get_article_backup. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it sits at the minimum viable level.

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