db_list_filesets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The tool lists restore points, but the description does not state whether it is read-only, requires authorization, or has any side effects. For a simple list operation, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation is a gap.

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, starting with a one-line summary followed by parameter explanations in a clear list. It could be slightly more compact, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential purpose, parameters, and default limit. However, it lacks any mention of pagination, ordering, or the format of the returned filesets, which the output schema likely provides.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains both parameters: 'backup_id: Numeric ID of the backup job' and 'limit: Maximum number of filesets to return (default 20).' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List available restore points (backup versions) for a backup job.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('restore points/backup versions'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with backups but not listing restore points.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_get_backup_metadata or list_backups. It does not specify prerequisites, such as needing a valid backup_id, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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