List Backup Shares

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the result set is filtered to pending/unexpired shares in both directions, and the call requires the View Backups permission, an auth prerequisite not present in the structured fields.

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 scope and state definitions, with no filler. The trailing `counterpartySpaceName` clause refers to output rather than input in a parameter-focused sentence, which costs a little clarity but not much length.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (incoming/outgoing pending shares, the counterparty space) and the permission gate. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only pagination/expiry specifics are absent, which is acceptable here.

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% for the single optional `spaceId` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema; its mention of `counterpartySpaceName` describes a response field, not an input parameter, which slightly muddles rather than clarifies parameter usage.

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 names the resource precisely (backup shares) and narrows the scope to pending, unexpired ones, then defines the `incoming`/`outgoing` distinction. It implicitly separates this read-only listing from the action siblings (share_backup, accept_backup_share, decline_backup_share, cancel_backup_share), but never names them or explicitly contrasts with list_backups/get_backup.

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?

Usage is implied by the state definitions ('waiting for this space to accept or decline' suggests when an agent would look here), and the View Backups permission requirement is a stated prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling tool.

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