Compare backup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing anything'. It also adds useful behavioral detail about what is compared ('per port and per automation rule') and that it reflects the current device state.

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 sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the use case is in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a single required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema available, the description covers what the tool does, its scope, its side-effect-free behavior, and when to invoke it.

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%, with backup_id already described as 'Backup id from backup_settings.' The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema carries the meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('configuration field that differs between a backup and the device right now'), with explicit scope ('per port and per automation rule'). The no-change disclaimer makes it clearly distinct from mutating siblings like restore_settings and set_* tools.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'after write experiments to verify the device is back in its original state.' It doesn't name alternative tools or define when not to use it, but the intended trigger is concrete enough for an agent to select it.

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