backup_file_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping behavior (default backup_id, path from root), which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or errors. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 brief and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a concise Args section explaining the two parameters. It is well-structured and contains no filler, though the Russian line 'Содержимое файлового бэкапа' could be more specific about the list nature.

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?

Given that annotations cover read-only safety, an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), and the description explains both parameters and their defaults, the definition is fairly complete for a simple listing tool. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation from backup_files_list.

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. It does so by explaining the meaning and default behavior of both parameters: backup_id (not specified = current copy) and path (empty = root). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool name backup_file_list and description clearly indicate it lists the contents of a file backup (files and directories). This is a clear verb+resource, but the description does not distinguish it from the similar sibling backup_files_list, which appears to be an alternate/duplicate tool.

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 implies usage by explaining that backup_id defaults to the current backup and path defaults to the root. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus backup_files_list or other backup-related siblings. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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