List Backfills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't confirm safety, auth requirements, pagination, or behavior details. Only the return fields are listed, which is more about output than behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then lists return fields and the limit parameter, and finishes with 'When to use.' Generally efficient, though listing all return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 2-param tool with no annotations and a documented output schema, the description covers purpose and one parameter but omits 'env', auth/prereqs, and sibling routing. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains 'limit: max backfills to return (default 10),' adding meaning for one parameter. The 'env' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List recent asset backfills with their status and partition progress'), clearly distinguishing it from run-oriented siblings like get_runs or get_recent_materializations. It's a bit generic but the resource domain (backfills) is unique among siblings.

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?

Provides 'When to use: to monitor in-progress backfills or review recent ones,' which gives implied usage context. However, it doesn't contrast against alternatives (e.g., get_recent_materializations or get_runs) or state when not to use it.

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