List environment backups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the underlying command and that it uses the active pac auth profile, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, output shape beyond labels/dates, or failure behavior. The command name implies listing only, but an explicit safety statement would strengthen it.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose, the restore relationship, and the underlying command are all front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 list operation, the description is largely complete: it names the returned data (labels and dates), the command, and the restore context. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key output fields. It could mention that no parameters are required and that the operation is read-only, but the schema covers required parameters and the command name makes the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description and no defaults are undocumented. The tool description adds only contextual framing (environment backups, active profile) rather than new parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at the baseline for full coverage.

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 identifies the resource (environment backups) and the data returned (labels and dates), and explicitly ties it to 'pac admin list-backups'. It also distinguishes itself from the related restore tool by stating these are exactly 'what cs_admin_restore_environment can restore'. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose with sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context: this tool lists restorable backups for an environment loose, and names cs_admin_restore_environment as the companion tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative listing tools, but the intended use-case is clear enough for an agent to select it over backup/restore siblings.

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