List generated-file backups

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature (listing backups) and the automatic creation trigger. It also specifies the output includes backup IDs and relative paths, adding transparency beyond the tool name.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the main action, the context of creation, and the output contents. No extraneous words 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, why it exists, and what data is returned. Minor omission: no mention of ordering or filtering, but acceptable for a simple 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single optional parameter. The description's mention of 'project-scoped' reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema description.

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 project-scoped recovery snapshots, specifying their origin (automatic before ftc-toolchain overwrites) and content (backup ID and relative paths). The purpose is distinct from siblings like restore_backup and list_generated_files.

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 provides context for when backups are created and what they contain, implying use for inspecting available backups. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like list_generated_files or when not to use it.

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