List backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: newest-first ordering, inclusion of the Keynote write manifest, and the behavioral fact that failed writes leave no backup. It stops short of discussing pagination or output shape, but the output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it lists and the ordering, followed by when to use and the key negative case. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of structured fields.

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 explained, the annotation set covers the safety profile, and the description supplies the ordering, manifest inclusion, and failure semantics an agent needs. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the accepted formats (.numbers, .key, .pages; absolute or ~-prefixed). The description adds no further semantics about the path argument, so the baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (versioned backups), and scope (every write left for this file, newest first), plus the Keynote write manifest. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling iwork_restore_backup, which it names.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger (user wants to undo or compare versions), routes to the alternative (iwork_restore_backup restores one), and gives an explicit when-not (not needed after a failed tool call, since failed writes never change the file). Nothing is left to inference.

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