List project backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: backups are created automatically before writes and results come back newest first, which tells the agent both provenance and ordering. It stops short of describing pagination, truncation, or what an empty result means.

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?

One compact clause with zero filler, and the ordering hint and cross-tool linkage are front-loaded. The telegraphic comma splice makes it slightly harder to parse than a full sentence would, but nothing 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape (ids, newest first) and the downstream consumer. Only edge-case behavior, such as no backups existing or result caps, is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required 'project' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the project identifier format or resolution, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 the resource (backups made before writes) and the return payload (ids), which is more specific than the title alone. It is distinguishable from the sibling spine_restore_backup, which consumes these ids. The verb 'list' is only implied by the title rather than stated in the description text.

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 phrase 'ids for spine_restore_backup' implies the intended workflow: call this first, then restore. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no note on when backups exist or how many are typically returned, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites.

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