list_site_backups

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's extra detail is pure added value: newest-first ordering, per-domain retention of 10 backups, and the creation trigger. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, all substantive, with the core action front-loaded. The lifecycle context, workflow hook, and sibling distinction each earn their place without padding.

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 read-only list tool with one optional filter and an output schema, this description covers scope, ordering, retention, usage, and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call or consume this tool correctly is missing.

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 single domain parameter is already fully documented in the schema ('Filter to one domain's backups'), so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description reinforces 'per domain' but does not need to add further semantics; baseline 3 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource—'List the automatic backups of site configs, newest first'—and closes by distinguishing itself from list_archived_sites. An agent can immediately tell this tool from its siblings and understand the resource scope.

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?

It explains exactly when backups exist (before create_site, update_site, restore_site, rollback_site), how to consume results (feed into rollback_site's backup_filename to restore a specific version), and explicitly says it is not list_archived_sites. This is explicit when/when-not and alternative guidance.

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