GetBackup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, status). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific backup dataset by ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) but lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, and fails to differentiate from many sibling tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with zero annotation support, more context is needed.

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 description mentions the parameter 'ID' ('by ID'), which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the ID format or constraints. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating it's for a 'specific backup dataset', but doesn't explain ID syntax or examples, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific backup dataset by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetBackupObject' or 'GetBackupFile' that might retrieve similar backup-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools like 'GetBackupObject', 'GetBackupFile', and 'GetAllBackups' that could overlap in functionality, there's no explicit or implied context for choosing this specific tool, leaving a significant gap.

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