backup_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and lists parameters, but does not disclose what the backup operation produces, where it stores backups, whether it is destructive, what errors may occur, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap.

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 concise, front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, and uses a clean list format for parameters. It wastes no words, though it repeats parameter names that also appear in the schema; the additional Chinese explanations justify their presence.

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?

The tool is moderately simple, but the description lacks information about output format, error handling, or relationship to the sibling backup_namespace tool. With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain more about the backup's result and behavior.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters, so the description's Args section provides essential semantics—resource_type lists examples, kubeconfig_path explains fallback behavior, and cluster_name is noted as optional. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 backs up specific resources (备份特定资源), with the verb 'backup' and resource type parameters. It distinguishes from sibling backup_namespace by explicitly focusing on individual resources rather than whole namespaces.

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 usage context by listing the resource types (deployment, service, configmap) and the optional cluster parameters. It clearly implies this is for backing up a specific resource, distinct from namespace-level backup, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.

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