rba_list_backups

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It honestly states a read-only listing action and the optional filtering behavior, but it does not disclose return format, whether path matches exact or prefix, or how backups are sorted. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loads the primary action and resource, and adds the optional filter without any redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and parameter intent. However, it omits expected return values and any prerequisites or related workflow context, making it marginally complete.

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 schema provides only a bare string 'path' with no description, so the description's reference to 'one original path' adds useful meaning. However, it stops short of clarifying matching semantics (exact, prefix, or glob), leaving ambiguity for a 0% schema coverage tool.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'workspace file backups' and adds the optional filter 'filtered to one original path.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_list_autoexec_backups, which target a different backup type.

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 such as rba_restore_backup or rba_backup_file. It does not state scenarios for listing backups or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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