backup_download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'without changing it' largely restates readOnlyHint rather than adding new information. It does not disclose whether the response contains a signed URL, how long such a link lives, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The wording is efficient, though 'download metadata' could be sharpened to remove the ambiguity noted above.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation about the return payload, yet the description never says what 'download response' actually contains (URL, token, expiry). For a read tool whose only real product is that response, this leaves a meaningful gap, though the input side is fully covered.

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%, so both parameters, including the server_id default fallback to WISP_SERVER_ID, are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the backup ID requirement and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which makes 3 the correct baseline.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: request Wisp download metadata for a backup. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as create_backup, deploy_backup, and delete_backup. Slight ambiguity remains between whether it returns metadata or performs an actual download, which keeps it from 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?

It provides a when-to-use condition: when a client needs the panel-provided backup download response for an existing backup ID. It does not name alternatives (deploy_backup, list_backups) or state when not to use it, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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