agent_backups_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-field hints for 'list' (id, date, author) and the restorability note for prompt_history, but says nothing about the 'mode' tradeoff (truncation vs full payload) or about pagination/size limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage guidance and a compact action legend. No filler sentences; every element earns 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what each action returns. Minor gap: nothing about agentId scope or the size implications of 'mode', which matter for a read tool that can return bulky blobs.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates by defining what each action value yields ('latest — the most recent backup', 'prompt_history — ... snapshots that can be restored'). It leaves 'mode' to the schema (which documents it fully) and adds nothing for agentId, so it stops short of perfect.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('backups and prompt history of an agent'), and the enumerated actions make the scope concrete. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling agent_backups_write.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Check here before a risky change, or to find a version to go back to.' That names the trigger conditions well, though it never explicitly points to the write sibling as the alternative for restoring.

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