backup_verify

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. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as performance implications of deep/quick modes, what exactly is verified, or how results are returned. It merely restates the tool's purpose without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 short sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful for a tool with five parameters. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it omits essential information, earning a mid-range score.

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?

With five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description must provide substantial context. It gives none, leaving the agent to guess what each parameter does, what checks are performed, and what the return value looks like. This is severely incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions nothing about 'deep', 'quick', 'type', 'backup_id', or 'timeout_ms', leaving all five parameters unexplained. The agent cannot know how to set them correctly.

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 (verifies) and the resource (backups) with a specific focus on integrity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like backup_list or backup_status by specifying 'integrity', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like backup_status, backup_list, or backup_clean. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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