list_backups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields but fails to state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. For a list operation, the description should at least imply safety (e.g., 'This operation does not modify any data').

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 consists of a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It informs the agent about the returned fields (filename, timestamp, size) and the scope ('all available'). However, it could mention if backups are ordered or filtered, but that's not strictly necessary.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and mentioning the output fields adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 tool lists all available configuration backups and includes the specific fields returned (filename, creation timestamp, size). The verb 'lists' and resource 'configuration backups' are unambiguous, and the tool is distinct from siblings like restore_backup or save_config.

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 state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The agent must infer that this is for listing backups based on context, but there is no direct guidance such as 'Use this to view backups; use restore_backup to restore them.'

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