List backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output fields (state, repo, completion time) and the namespace scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds only the essential output details. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, read-only list operation with fully documented parameters, annotations covering side effects, and a description naming the returned fields, nothing essential is missing. The absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by the description's mention of state, repo, and completion time.

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 both parameters (context and namespace) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully covers semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource type ('PerconaPGBackup resources'), and a scoping qualifier ('in a namespace'). It also names the key output attributes (state, repo, completion time), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_restores or list_clusters.

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 clearly implies this tool is for inspecting backup resources in a namespace, which provides enough context for most agents to choose it over siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource-specific phrasing makes the intended use clear.

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