list_workflow_backups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only behavior (listing backups) and specifies the return contents (timestamp, size, description). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or potential side effects, but for a simple list operation these are minor gaps that do not undermine correctness.

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 that conveys the action, the resource, and the output contents with no filler. Every word contributes useful meaning.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what to call, what input is needed (schema covers it), and what kind of results to expect. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents workflowId with a clear definition. The description adds nothing about parameter formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backup versions for a workflow'), and adds the metadata components returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_workflows, diff_workflow_versions, and restore_workflow without needing to inspect the schema.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to list backup versions for a workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as 'to compare versions use diff_workflow_versions' or 'to restore use restore_workflow'. Context is clear but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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