params_backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by clarifying that no vehicle connection is opened, which is the key operational fact an agent needs to avoid assuming a live session.

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 clipped sentences, the enumeration first and the operational caveat second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it safely. It stops short of the one remaining useful detail: how it differs from the singular params_backup and whether results are ordered or paginated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list adds orientation about the response shape but is partly redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List saved parameter backups') and even previews the record fields returned (id, time, vehicle, firmware, completeness). It implicitly separates itself from the singular params_backup by describing an enumeration of already-saved records, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 'Does not contact the vehicle' clause implies this is the offline/snapshot path rather than a live-fetch tool like params_diff, but the description never says when to choose this over params_backup or params_diff. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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