Get Backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required 'View Backups' permission, which is useful authorization context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about failure modes or what the returned backup contains.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and the permission requirement front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the title or name.

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 full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essentials plus the permission prerequisite. A brief note on typical errors (missing/invalid id) would make it fully complete.

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 parameters (spaceId with its server-default fallback, backupId cross-referenced to list_backups) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' adds no meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Get one backup by id'), and the phrase 'one backup' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_backups. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the singular retrieval scope is unambiguous.

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 supplies a prerequisite ('Needs the View Backups permission'), which is genuine usage context, and the backupId schema note points to list_backups for discovery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or routing among the backup siblings (share_backup, list_backup_shares).

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