List Index Backups

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that absolute paths are hidden, which is a security/privacy-relevant trait. The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover safety, and the description complements them without contradicting. It does not detail return format, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and a meaningful qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a notable behavioral nuance. It could optionally mention what fields are returned (e.g., names, timestamps), but the low complexity and good annotations make the description adequately complete.

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 has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema states. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than redundant parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recoverable index backups'), and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without exposing their absolute paths'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like rag_list_documents or rag_status.

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 implies the tool is for viewing available backups, but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before restoration) or how it compares to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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