list_backups

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that backups are generated automatically before each edit, and the verb 'List' signals a read-only operation. It does not cover ordering, retention, or return format, but the essential behavioral context is present.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The key scoping fact about automatic pre-edit backups is front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, scope, and creation semantics well enough to invoke safely. It could explicitly link these backups to undo_last_edit or describe the returned entries, but the description plus schema is adequate.

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 only parameter, map_path, already has a complete schema description ('Absolute path to the .map file'), and the tool description's 'for a map' merely reinforces it. With 100% schema description coverage, no additional parameter meaning is required.

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 action ('List') and a specific resource ('snapshot backups') scoped to a map, and the parenthetical clarifies they are automatic pre-edit snapshots. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities and undo_last_edit.

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 provides context by noting backups are made automatically before every edit, which implies the tool is relevant for inspecting restore points. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus undo_last_edit or other map tools, so usage routing is only implicit.

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