List backups

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: results are newest-first and contain IDs suitable for restore/compare operations. With no parameters and a read-only operation, this is complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, then adds the ordering, output content, and intended downstream use with no filler. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, annotations, and a stated downstream purpose, the description gives the agent everything needed to understand and invoke it correctly. There are no missing behavioral or usage details that matter.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema already communicates that the tool takes no arguments. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; this is the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing saved backups, ordered newest first, and providing IDs. It also states the downstream consumers (restore_settings/compare_backup), which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_automations or list_controllers in a single sentence.

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 phrase 'for restore_settings/compare_backup' gives clear context for when this list is the relevant prerequisite, pointing the agent to sibling tools that consume the IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative listing tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not recommendation.

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