List backup inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: retained records live under the deleted source cluster name, authorization is evaluated against that name, and a missing cluster with no retained records returns 404 — useful for interpreting failures, though nothing is said about pagination behavior.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the retention caveat; no filler. The second paragraph is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity with 'that cluster name', but overall it is tight.

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 four-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description never explains pagination (limit/cursor) or what a backup record contains, which an agent needs to page correctly and to interpret results. The retention/404 semantics are a good addition but do not close the gap.

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 only the namespace field carries any inline text, so the description must carry the burden. It hints that 'cluster' can be a deleted cluster name for retention lookups, but says nothing about limit, cursor, or namespace scoping, leaving three of four parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List backup inventory'), which is clearer than the title alone and separates it from singular getters like backup_get. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as backup_drills_list, control_plane_backups_list, or restores_list, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the retention paragraph tells the agent that listing backups for a deleted cluster still works if you pass the old cluster name, which is a real usage scenario. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over backup_get or the drill/control-plane listing siblings.

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