db_get_backup_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description indicates a read-only operation by saying 'Return', but does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or any potential side effects. It discloses the kind of data returned but lacks details on performance or error handling.

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?

The description is concise, using three short sentences plus an Args line. Every sentence adds value, no redundant or extraneous text, and the structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema (present but not shown), and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns, what data it includes, and how to find the backup ID. It is complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds an 'Args' section clarifying that backup_id is a numeric ID (though typed as string) and provides guidance to use list_backups. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property definition.

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 states it returns rich metadata for a backup job, listing specific fields like last run date, duration, file counts, quota usage, and last error. It also distinguishes itself from the REST API by noting it is more detailed, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_backup and list_backups.

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 provides context by stating it is from the local SQLite database and is more detailed than the REST API, implying use when detailed metadata is needed. It also instructs to use list_backups to find IDs, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention when not to use this tool over alternatives like get_backup.

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