backup_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns status, live progress, and a log, which strongly implies a read-only inspection operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it requires permissions, or what the log/progress response shape looks like.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the key return aspects are front-loaded. Its fragment-like phrasing ('A backup or restore run: ...') is efficient but slightly less direct than a clear verb-led sentence.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the main return concepts: status, progress, and log. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should do more to disambiguate this tool from run_backup and to clarify that it retrieves an existing run rather than starting one.

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 100%, and the single run_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_backups (last_run.id). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as 'a backup or restore run' and names the aspects it exposes: status, progress, and log. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', which leaves slight ambiguity against the action-oriented sibling 'run_backup', but the intended read operation is still inferable.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives such as run_backup or list_backups. The only usage signal comes indirectly from the required run_id schema parameter, which is not part of the description itself.

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