Бэкапы сцен

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that backups are auto-created before every scene write, which explains the origin of the data, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, its location, and the creation trigger with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 read-only listing tool with full safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits the return format and any pagination/limit behavior. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 50%: 'file' is documented in the schema while 'limit' is not, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It neither clarifies the file-filter naming nor the limit's purpose, leaving the coverage gap unaddressed.

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 clear verb and resource ('Список автоматических бэкапов сцен') plus the storage location (.mcp-backups), which is specific enough to distinguish it from godot_scene and godot_scene_edit. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to reach for it versus godot_scene or godot_scene_edit, and states no preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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