backup_drill

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

The description discloses core behavior: booting an app in an isolated Docker environment and checking responsiveness. However, with no annotations, it leaves out potential side effects (e.g., container creation, cleanup), permissions required, or whether the operation is destructive.

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, efficient sentence (16 words) that conveys the tool's essence without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the verb 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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It lacks context about safety (e.g., whether drilling affects production data), cleanup behavior, and typical use cases.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Verify a backup by booting an app...'. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('backup'), and the method (booting in Docker, checking response) is explained. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like backup_create and backup_restore.

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 implies usage for verifying backup integrity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like backup_restore. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite information is given.

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