list_backfills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format and a parameter (limit) but does not address mutability, side effects, or permissions. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly confirmed, and no contradictions exist.

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 very concise with two short paragraphs and a bullet. It is front-loaded, no redundant sentences, and every line adds value. Structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given the output schema exists (covering return values) and the sibling list is provided, the description covers the core purpose and usage context. The omission of the 'env' parameter is a minor gap, but overall adequate for a monitoring tool.

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. It explains the 'limit' parameter (max backfills, default 10), adding value beyond the schema's type and default. However, the 'env' parameter is not described, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'recent asset backfills', and specifies the returned information (status, partition progress, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_jobs which list different resources.

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 includes a 'When to use' section explicitly stating 'to monitor in-progress backfills or review recent ones', providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is direct and sufficient for the tool's purpose.

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