Get backup file listing

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the state machine (queued, running, awaiting_reply, succeeded, failed), the fact that entries appear only on success, that failure carries an errorCode with no listing, and the required services:read scope. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries operational meaning (polling states, success/failure semantics, error handling). 'Free and read-only' mildly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics — and it does, covering when entries are present, what a failed state returns, and how to report it. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so both orderNo and browse_id are fully documented in the schema, including the pattern for orderNo and the origin of browse_id. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail, 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: 'Poll one queued backup file listing.' This is clearly a status/result retrieval operation, distinct from the many list_* siblings. It stops short of naming the initiating sibling (browse_restore_files) in the description body, relying on the schema's browse_id text for that linkage.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-continue/when-to-stop guidance: 'Keep polling while state is queued, running, or awaiting_reply; entries are present only when state is succeeded.' It also tells the agent how to handle the failed branch. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool that initiates the browse, but the polling workflow itself is unambiguous.

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