backup_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dashboard scope (status, espace, alertes), but does not disclose the behavior of the 'watch' parameter or what the output looks like. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and key content areas. There is no wasted text or irrelevant detail.

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 read-only status tool, the description gives a minimally viable idea of what the tool returns. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the two parameters, an agent cannot fully anticipate the response format or how to customize the view. The missing parameter semantics is the main gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'watch' and 'compact' parameters. It does not mention either parameter or explain how they affect the dashboard. The names are mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Affiche le dashboard global des backups' with the scope 'status, espace, alertes'. It conveys an overview dashboard, which implies a distinction from sibling list/verify tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from backup_list or backup_verify.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backup_list or backup_verify. The word 'global' weakly implies a high-level overview, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or sibling references to guide selection.

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