get_backup_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself conveys the core behavioral expectation: retrieval of backup history including automated/manual backups and their status and sizes. It does not explicitly mention ordering, pagination, or the effect of the limit parameter, but the overall non-destructive retrieval behavior is clearly implied by the word 'Get' and the factual output description.

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, informative sentence. It immediately identifies the action, the resource, the inclusion of automated and manual backups, and the output criteria (status and sizes) without redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a complete overview of what it retrieves and what output details are exposed (status and sizes). It doesn't list the exact response structure or timestamp fields, but the description is sufficient to understand the tool's result.

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 100% because the only parameter, 'limit', has a full description including its default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter-related context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 specifies a distinct verb ('Get') and resource ('database backup history') and additionally scopes the operation to automated and manual backups with statuses and sizes. This unambiguously separates it from related sibling tools like database status or metrics 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 specific resource ('backup history') provides clear context for when this tool should be used, and it is distinct from all 50 sibling tools, so no alternative is explicitly named. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming a specific alternative, but the resource scoping is clear enough.

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