cluster_monitor_backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new information. It does add useful behavior-relevant context: the underlying views queried and the fact that results span both historical and currently-running backups. It does not disclose freshness/latency, cost, or volume characteristics.

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 tight parts: a front-loaded purpose sentence naming concrete returned fields, then a single-argument block. Every clause earns its place with no restatement of the name or filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned content (last successful backup, its age, failures, sizes, durations, running backups) and explains the sole parameter. That is enough for an agent to call it correctly, though usage timing and any pagination/volume expectations are absent.

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% (the parameter only carries a title, 'Warn Days'), so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it defines warn_days as the age threshold in days that triggers flagging. It omits the schema's default of 7, a minor 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 (backup overview) and enumerates what it covers: last successful backup and age, failed backups, sizes/durations, and in-flight backups. It is clearly distinguished from most siblings by naming the specific data sources (MV_BACKUP_HISTORY, MV_BACKUP_STATUS). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the neighboring cluster_monitor_history/cluster_monitor_data tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only contextual cue is 'for the Cluster Monitor's Backups tab,' which implies where it surfaces in the UI but does not tell the agent when to call it over other cluster_monitor_* tools.

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