list_backups

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs incremental context. It contributes meaningfully by disclosing that results are paginated ('one page') and by naming the fields returned, which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing page-size limits or total-count behavior.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the routing hint second. No filler, no repetition of annotation content.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and it flags the paginated nature of the result. A minor gap is that it doesn't mention when pagination ends or whether empty pages signal the last result, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with page, per_page, and server_id each documented including defaults and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable here but adds no value.

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 and resource ('List one page of backups for a server') and immediately scopes it as read-only discovery. The list of fields it reveals (IDs, names, state, metadata) plus the enumeration of downstream operations (restore, delete, lock, download) makes it easy to distinguish from the mutating backup siblings.

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 says when to use it: to discover backup IDs and metadata before restore, delete, lock, or download operations. It also signals the negative case ('without modifying them'), so an agent knows not to reach for it when a mutation is intended, though it does not name the specific sibling tools to use instead.

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