slide_list_backups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the context that each backup attempt may have succeeded or failed, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention pagination behavior, or describe any side effects. While 'list' implies a read operation, the description could provide more clarity on response structure or non-destructive nature.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action ('List backup attempts') and then lists the filterable dimensions. There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately scannable.

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 has 11 parameters, all optional, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the main filter dimensions, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its basic usage. However, it does not explicitly mention that it returns a paginated list or that it is read-only, though these are somewhat implied by 'list' and the schema parameters. Given the complexity, the description is fairly complete but could be slightly more explicit about the operation's safety.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filterable dimensions (agent, snapshot, device, time range), which aligns with the parameters. It adds a concise overview but does not provide syntax details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backup attempts'), and clarifies that each attempt may have succeeded or failed. This distinguishes it from slide_get_backup, which retrieves a single backup, and from other list tools. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 as a list operation with filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like slide_get_backup or other list tools. It mentions filterable criteria, which suggests querying scenarios, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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