fx_list_backups

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral context — these snapshots are automatic and generated before edits/deletions — but says nothing about whether listing is read-only, how long snapshots are retained, or whether/how they can be restored.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource named up front and the qualifying origin clause appended. 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, one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what is listed and where the items come from. It only omits ordering/retention details and any pointer to restore-related siblings.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about the limit (e.g., max values, ordering, pagination). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Lista") and resource ("snapshots de backups automáticos") and clarifies their origin (created by the MCP before edits/deletions). It is distinguishable from fx_list_live_resources and fx_list_resources by the 'backup snapshots' framing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 a recovery/audit use case by noting the snapshots predate edits and deletions, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling list tools an agent might confuse it with.

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