yeastar_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 clearly communicates that this is a metadata-only listing operation, that backup content is never returned, and explains the security rationale. It does not mention response pagination shape or authentication, but the most non-obvious behavior is well covered.

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 two tight sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded. The security explanation earns its place by preventing misuse, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple metadata-list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the returned fields, and the critical no-download behavior. Minor gaps remain around response envelope/pagination format and permission requirements, but they do not seriously hinder correct invocation.

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%, and the parameter descriptions for page and page_size already explain their defaults and semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List configuration backup metadata for this appliance' and enumerates the returned fields (name, created time, size). It also distinguishes itself from any backup-content retrieval by explicitly saying file contents are not returned, making the tool's scope 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?

It states an explicit use case: 'for monitoring backup health (e.g. when did the last backup run)'. It also provides a clear when-not: the tool does not return backup file contents and download is never implemented, preventing agents from attempting a use it cannot satisfy.

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