n2_kv_backup_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals little: it implies a read-only listing but says nothing about ordering, recency, pagination, retention limits, or whether backup metadata (timestamps, sizes) is included. An agent cannot predict the shape or size of the response.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity comes at the cost of information.

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?

It is a simple one-parameter read tool without an output schema, so the bar is modest, and the description identifies the scope correctly. However, nothing is said about what the history contains or how results are ordered or bounded, leaving the return behavior opaque.

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 the single 'project' parameter is already documented. The phrase 'for a project' adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('KV-Cache backup history') scoped to a project, which distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools n2_kv_backup and n2_kv_restore. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous.

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 mention of alternatives such as n2_kv_load or n2_kv_search, and no preconditions (e.g., whether backups must exist first). The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to n2_kv_backup purely from the word 'List'.

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