List Backups

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: ordering, the fact that backups are redeployable Cube disk/configurations, the meaning of `sharedFromBackupId`, and the View Backups permission requirement. It does not explain pagination or response shape, but for a read-only list it provides substantial context.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then adds only useful clarifications about backup semantics, the shared-copy field, and permissions. There is no filler.

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 read-only list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers item meaning, ordering, the shared-from field, and authorization. It could be slightly more complete on response shape, but the remaining gap is minor.

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 optional `spaceId` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the KROVA_SPACE_ID default. The description does not add parameter syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the space's backups'), plus ordering ('newest first') and a useful definition of a backup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_backup or list_backup_shares, so it stops 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?

It states the required permission and implies the listing use case, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus get_backup, list_backup_shares, or share_backup. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully directed.

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