cfg_list_backups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors like read-only nature, permissions, and side effects. It only describes the listing operation and parameters, omitting whether it requires file access or has any restrictions.

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 brief and well-structured, with a summary sentence followed by parameter descriptions. No wasted words.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description explains the main functionality and parameters, but could be more explicit about search scope (e.g., non-recursive). It is adequate for a list tool.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: config_path is 'Absolute path whose backups we want to enumerate' with basename as prefix filter, and backup_dir is optional defaulting to config_path's directory.

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 states the tool lists .bak-* backups for a config path, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cfg_backup (create) and db_table_list_backups (database).

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 implicitly indicates usage for enumerating config backups, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like cfg_backup or db_table_list_backups.

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