mt_get_backup_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool displays a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like whether it requires authentication, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a basic list tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough depth for more complex scenarios, such as understanding result limitations or error conditions.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it naturally meets the baseline. It doesn't introduce any parameter-related information, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'バックアップしたアイテムの一覧を表示します' translates to 'Displays a list of backed-up items.' This specifies the verb ('displays') and resource ('backed-up items'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mt_list_content_data' or 'mt_list_entries,' which might also list items in different contexts, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether backups must exist first, or compare it to siblings like 'mt_list_sessions' or 'mt_list_sites' that might list other resources. Without any context or exclusions, users are left to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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