Get Backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful auth context (View Backups permission), but says nothing about behavior for a missing/inaccessible id or rate limits.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precondition, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-resource read with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose and the permission prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior when the id is invalid or the space is inaccessible.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both spaceId (default fallback) and backupId are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that; a baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one backup by id'), and 'one ... by id' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_backups, which the schema also cross-references. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but an agent can still separate the two.

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?

There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative; usage is only implied by the requirement of a backup id. The permission prerequisite ('Needs the View Backups permission') is a useful precondition, but selection guidance against list_backups or the share tools is left to inference.

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