list_backups

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation but does not specify if authentication is required, whether results are paginated, or if only active jobs are listed. The minimal detail is adequate but leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. No wasted 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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It lists the returned fields but omits details like whether the list is exhaustive, if sorting is applied, or if there are any side effects. For a simple list tool this is acceptable, but could be more informative.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since there are none. According to guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4.

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 it lists all configured backup jobs and specifies the returned fields (ID, name, last run, next run). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like backup_status (single job status) and list_notifications (different resource).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_backup_files or backup_status. However, the simplicity of the tool (listing all jobs) implies a basic use case, so the omission is minor but noticeable.

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