list_backups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first') and the per-run content ('what each run overwrote, added and deleted'), which substitutes for the absent output schema. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or scope limits on large backup sets.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with every clause adding information about ordering or returned content. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned and in what order. It stops short of describing pagination or result size limits, which an agent might need on a server with many backups.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the backups on the server') plus sort order and the content included per entry. However, it does not distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings like 'history' or 'check_server_changes', leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'history', 'preview_restore' or 'restore'. The workflow context (e.g. inspecting backups before a restore) is only implicitly suggested by the tool's existence, not articulated.

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