List backups

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds extra behavioral context: backup files are timestamped, .bak files, and are automatically created before write operations. This gives the agent a clearer understanding of what these backup files represent, going beyond the structured 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?

The description is concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The primary purpose is in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant detail about timestamps and automatic creation. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns ('timestamped .bak files') and their origin. It does not specify the exact return format, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 fully describes the only parameter, filepath, with type and a clear description ('Path to the library file (.PcbLib or .SchLib)'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('available backup files for an Altium library'), and the file type (.bak). It differentiates from siblings like restore_backup by focusing on listing rather than restoring, so an agent can understand the tool's role at a glance.

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 inspecting backups, and mentions they are automatically created before write operations, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like restore_backup or write operations. Context is understandable but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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