list_backups

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond them: results are ordered newest-first, and the entries originate from two named mutation tools. Return format and pagination are not discussed, but the output schema covers that.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the two most useful facts (provenance, ordering). Everything present 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a one-parameter tool the lone 'limit' parameter is left completely unspecified, and the absence of usage guidance leaves the agent to infer the inspect-before-restore workflow.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and must compensate. It says nothing about what limit controls, its default of 10, or any maximum, leaving the only tunable knob undocumented in both places.

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 resource (backups) and adds scope via provenance ('taken by apply_changes and restore_backup') plus ordering ('newest first'). An agent can distinguish this from restore_backup (which consumes backups) without opening the schema, though it never explicitly names that routing.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The provenance hint weakly implies this is how you inspect available backups before calling restore_backup, but that relationship is never stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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