List Backup Configurations

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the tool returns schedule/retention/destination/databases and is intended to answer about backup existence. It does not cover pagination or sorting behavior, but these are documented in the schema.

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 three sentences: it defines the tool, states its purpose, and explains a limitation. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output fields and clarifies a key limitation (no instance listing). It leaves some behavior (sorting, pagination) to the schema, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and scope.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond stating the output fields; it adds no additional meaning to the parameter definitions already in the 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 description explicitly states the tool lists database backup configurations including schedule, retention, destination, and covered databases. It answers a specific question ('is this server being backed up?') and differentiates from any potential sibling by clarifying it does not list backup instances.

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 clear context: it lists configurations, not instances. It notes that listing instances requires a different scope and is not exposed here, giving implicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for instances.

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