get_backends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the nuance that it returns *declared* (rather than measured or inferred) features and limitations, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as ordering, completeness guarantees, or potential cost, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Return') and immediately specifies the resource and scope ('declared features and limitations for every rendering backend'), making every word earn its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a provided output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is fully sufficient. It states exactly what is returned and the scope ('every rendering backend'), so an agent can invoke it correctly without missing information. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the safety annotations cover side effects.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add to the input schema. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description correctly stays silent on parameters rather than inventing unnecessary detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('declared features and limitations for every rendering backend'). It clearly differentiates from sibling get_* tools (get_schema, get_spec, get_spec_template) by naming the exact subject matter – rendering backends – leaving no ambiguity about what the tool delivers.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The usage context is implied by the tool's purpose – an agent would call this when it needs to know what features or limitations rendering backends declare – but the description does not state exclusions or conditions, so it stops short of strong guidance.

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