list_backends

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It is inherently a read-only enumeration and implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, whether the set is static, or what ordering/shape the returned labels take.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated backend names earn their place by making the output set concrete.

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 no output schema, the description does the right thing by stating what is returned ('backends ... and their human-readable labels'). It stops short of describing the response shape or ordering, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool this is nearly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows; baseline of 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus concrete resource 'AtpClient backends', with the value set enumerated (sotptp, isabelle, local_exec, starexec). It does not distinguish itself from the similar-shaped sibling list_provers, so an agent must infer the difference between listing backends vs. provers.

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 implied: this is a discovery/enumeration tool for backend identifiers. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus list_provers, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance, leaving routing between sibling list tools partly to inference.

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