backup_status

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

The description discloses that the tool returns destination, settings, and schedule, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any side effects (likely none as it's a 'get' operation) or potential delays. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and partially fulfills it.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details. No extraneous words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output fields. However, it lacks guidance on parameter origin and potential error states, and sibling tools suggest more context could be useful.

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 0% for the single parameter backup_id, and the description does not explain what backup_id is or how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed status of a specific backup job'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_backups (which lists all backups) and create_backup (which creates a new job).

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 for retrieving detailed status of a single backup job but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like progress or list_backups. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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