nws_backup_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does convey a genuine behavioral trait: results are returned 'by count only', so the agent knows contents are summarized rather than enumerated. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether the path must exist, or permission requirements — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too terse given the absent parameter and behavioral 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. Still, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage context, the description is only minimally adequate for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single required parameter, backup_path, with 0% schema description coverage, so both the schema and description leave its meaning undefined. The description never explains what backup_path points to, the expected format, or how to obtain a valid value, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Describe) and resource (a vendor backup's contents and restorable categories), making the operation distinguishable from mutation siblings like nws_backup_create or nws_restore_commit. The 'by count only' qualifier clarifies scope. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it complements, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this inspects a backup, presumably before nws_restore_preview. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools such as nws_backup_create or nws_list.

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