backup_log

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the log records restore and download events specifically, but says nothing about ordering, retention, or scope of the entries.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key noun (log of restore/download operations) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. What remains missing is scope — whether the log covers file backups, MySQL backups, or both, and whether it is account-scoped — which matters given the parallel backup_files_* and backup_mysql_* sibling families.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies a full unfiltered log rather than a targeted lookup.

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 names a specific resource — a log of backup restore and download operations — which distinguishes it from the action siblings (backup_restore_file, backup_download_file) and the inventory siblings (backup_files_list, backup_mysql_list). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not say whether it spans both file and MySQL backups, which the sibling names suggest are separate domains.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. must a backup exist first, is it scoped to the current account), and no explicit routing away from the backup_* action tools. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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