list_backlog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the sorting order (priority then age), but leaves vague what 'statistics' means and does not explain potential truncation or default limits. This is a moderate level of transparency for a read-only list operation.

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 clearly states the purpose and sorting behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list tool.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify return behavior and side effects. It defines scope and sorting but omits details about 'statistics', pagination, or default limits. For a list tool with four optional parameters, this is a notable gap but not critically incomplete.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters (limit, status, priority, projectPath), including enums and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists queued debug reports in the backlog, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'queued debug reports'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_debug_reports by emphasizing the backlog context and adding a concrete sort order (priority then age).

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 that this is for the backlog of queued debug reports, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient to differentiate it from sibling tools like get_debug_report or clear_old_reports.

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