copalibre_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive pruning of older packets beyond the retention count, the Kubernetes-mode refusal, and explicitly that no API token is needed. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g. disk-space or pg_dump errors) or how success is reported, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and three sentences stay tight with no filler. The packing of mechanism, pruning, CLI equivalence, k8s refusal and token behavior into single clauses is dense but each clause carries real information.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers purpose, timing, destructive side effect, auth, and environment constraint well. The remaining holes are the undocumented dry_run parameter and any indication of what a successful run returns or where the packet path is reported.

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 67% – file and retain are documented in the schema, but dry_run has no description anywhere. The description contextualizes two of the three params ('under backups/' for file, 'pruning older packets beyond the retention count' for retain) but never mentions the dry-run capability, which an agent would need to discover a non-destructive preview mode.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (creates a compressed backup packet of the database), the underlying mechanism (pg_dump via the database-tools Compose service), and the destination (backups/). This is unambiguous and, unlike the sibling tools which are all doctor/module/schema utilities, leaves no doubt about what it produces.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it: 'before a risky operation or as part of a backup routine.' It also identifies the equivalent CLI path (copalibre backup) and a hard constraint (Kubernetes-mode refusal), which functions as a when-not condition. No true alternative tool exists among the siblings, so the lack of a named alternative is not a real gap.

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