List backup configurations

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying that credentials are redacted unless CALAGOPUS_ALLOW_SECRETS is set. This is valuable contextual behavior not implied by the readOnlyHint or other 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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core functionality and the redaction behavior. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not enumerate the fields returned in the list. It does mention redaction behavior and the detail parameter, but the exact response structure remains unspecified.

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?

All parameters have descriptions, and the schema covers 100% of them. However, the description for 'detail' references server and egg sizes, which seem irrelevant to backup configurations and may confuse the agent.

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 that the tool lists backup configurations, specifying the resource type (S3/Restic/PBS/Kopia targets). It distinguishes itself from other list tools by the unique resource it operates on.

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives, such as list_system_backup_policies, or explain when to prefer one over the other. It relies on the resource type being self-evident, which may be sufficient but lacks direct guidance.

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