kodi_backups

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower; against that, the description adds real context: results are capped at the latest 50, they are 'private' per-file snapshots, and contents are deliberately not returned (metadata only). It stops short of describing ordering or pagination 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?

A single sentence with no filler: the operation, the result limit, and the data-exposure constraint are all front-loaded in one pass. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

With an output schema present the return shape need not be explained, and with zero parameters there is no input contract to cover, so the description is nearly sufficient. The privacy and 50-item cap are the key behavioral facts an agent needs and both are stated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly avoids inventing parameter talk. The 'latest 50' note usefully defines the implicit result window in the absence of any input control.

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 ('List') and resource ('private per-file snapshots') plus scope ('latest 50'), so an agent can distinguish it from kodi_backup_file or kodi_restore_file, which mutate backups. The only wobble is vocabulary drift between the tool name ('backups') and the description ('snapshots'), but intent is still unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is how you enumerate available snapshots (presumably before a restore), but the description never says when to choose this over kodi_backup_file or kodi_restore_file, nor states any prerequisite. Adequate minimum, with a clear gap.

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