lira_list_backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value on top by disclosing where backups live (lira-mcp-backups next to the model), their ordering (newest first), and the retention guarantee that the server never deletes them. Only missing element is failure behavior when no backups exist.

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 resource and default target front-loaded, followed by the storage location and retention note. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the parameter and storage behavior are covered. The remaining gap is error/empty-state behavior and how a listed backup connects to lira_restore_backup, which a slightly longer description could have closed.

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 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed anyOf string/null, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the argument accepts a .lir path or an open model and that the active model is the default. It doesn't clarify what a null explicitly means versus omission, but the essential semantics are given.

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 identifies the exact resource (backups the server made of a model file) and the scope (a .lir path or an open model, defaulting to the active one), with ordering stated. The listing verb is only implied by the name and the 'newest first' phrasing rather than stated outright, and no sibling is named, so it falls just short of 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 conveys the default target (the active model) when no argument is passed, which is genuinely useful context for invocation. However, it never says when to call this versus alternatives such as lira_list_models or lira_restore_backup, nor any precondition like having a model open or a backup existing.

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