list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling on invalid backup_id, authentication requirements, or data freshness. For a simple list operation, more transparency is expected.

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 without extraneous words. It is concise and efficient for a simple tool, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. However, it fails to explain the return value format or pagination, and does not explicitly tie to sibling tools like 'restore_files' for a complete workflow.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It states that backup_id relates to 'a backup job' but does not explain its format, origin, or how to obtain it. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 action (list) and resource (available restore points/filesets) with the context of a backup job. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_backups' (which lists jobs) and 'restore_files' (which performs restoration).

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?

While the description implies usage for viewing restore points before restoring, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context from sibling tools is not leveraged for caveats.

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