List Backup Shares

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 description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds real value beyond them: results are filtered to pending and unexpired shares only, and calling requires the View Backups permission. Pagination and return shape are unaddressed, keeping it below 5.

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 with no filler; the scope constraint is front-loaded. The first sentence is a fragment lacking an explicit verb, which makes it slightly cryptic on first read but costs no space.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the filtering semantics, the meaning of a key returned field, and the permission prerequisite. The only gap is that no return structure or result volume is hinted at.

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 single spaceId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the KROVA_SPACE_ID default fallback, and it's optional. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 identifies the resource (backup shares) and precisely scopes it to pending, unexpired shares split into `incoming` and `outgoing`, with `counterpartySpaceName` explained as the other space. The verb is left implicit (carried by the tool name 'list'), and no sibling tool is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: 'waiting for this space to accept or decline' signals this is the pre-action view preceding accept_backup_share/decline_backup_share, and the permission prerequisite is given. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus list_backups or get_backup, nor any exclusions.

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