get_backup_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation against msdb, but does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, whether the operation is truly read-only, or any side effects. The word 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description itself does not explicitly state safety or disclose potential behaviors like requiring the database to exist or the meaning of 'recent'.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, whether it returns a list, the structure of the backup history, or any limitations. An agent would lack the context to interpret the response or anticipate failure modes, making the description inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 all three parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it merely states the tool returns 'recent backup history', which is already implied by the 'top' parameter's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('recent backup history'), and the source ('from msdb'). It is a specific and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which deal with backups.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While the naming and purpose make it obvious this is for backup history, it lacks any stated context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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