backup_list

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 transparently states this is a read operation ('reads names, sizes and dates') and warns that existence does not imply restorability. This goes beyond a simple listing description by surfacing a key limitation the agent might otherwise assume away.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core action is stated immediately, followed by a targeted clarification about what the data does and does not mean. Both sentences earn their place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, what fields are shown, a key limitation, and a pointer to the relevant sibling tool. It could mention the exact return format, but the description already conveys the core information needed for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter description coverage for the single optional 'server' parameter, stating it is an optional remote server name from config. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names the verb 'List', the resource 'existing backup archives', and the location 'the configured backup directory'. It also differentiates from the sibling backup_drill by explicitly stating that presence of an archive does not imply restorability, so an agent can distinguish this tool from related backup tools.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to see backup names, sizes, and dates. It also provides a meaningful exclusion by directing restoration validation to backup_drill. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use backup_create or backup_restore, leaving some selection guidance implicit rather than fully explicit.

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