rba_backup_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the destination and timestamped nature of the backup, but omits key details such as return value, file naming pattern, whether the original file is modified, and potential side effects. For a mutation-like tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and destination, scoring high for zero waste.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks parameter semantics, return value, and behavioral nuances such as timestamp format or whether backups are kept. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves several practical questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely implies that 'path' refers to a workspace file, but does not clarify the 'reason' parameter, its purpose, or its default value. The description adds little beyond the raw schema field names.

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's function: 'Create a timestamped backup of a workspace file under .rba-backups.' It specifies a concrete action (create), the target resource (workspace file), and the destination directory, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like rba_list_backups or rba_restore_backup.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related operations like rba_list_backups, rba_restore_backup, or rba_write_file, nor does it explain prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is only implied by the tool name and description.

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