list_backups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format precisely (the 'Showing X-Y of Z' lead line, tab-separated table columns, ISO UTC timestamps), explains retention stages (session/weekly/monthly/manual), describes pagination semantics, and the count-only mode. This is strong behavioral coverage for a read-only list tool, though it could note that it doesn't affect data or require auth.

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?

The description is well-structured: a brief one-line summary followed by output format details and an Args section. It's information-dense but every sentence earns its place — output format, stage taxonomy, and pagination are all essential for correct use. Slightly long but justified by the richness of the output format that needs explanation. Could be tightened but is not bloated.

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?

There's an output schema present, so return-value documentation burden is reduced. The description covers output format, stage types, pagination semantics, and edge cases (limit=0). For a straightforward read-only list with two simple pagination params, this is comprehensive. The only minor gap is no mention of prerequisites or authentication, but for a list tool in a system where auth is presumably uniform, this is acceptable.

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 input schema has only 2 params with defaults and no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full explanatory load. It does document both: limit (page size, default 50, max 250, 0=count only) and offset (0-indexed, default 0). Both params are explained clearly in the Args section, fully compensating for the zero schema coverage. The descriptions are accurate and complete for these simple pagination parameters.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List all available backups, newest first.' It differentiates from siblings by being the only pure list tool in the backup domain, distinct from create_backup and prune_backups which are mutations. The description also richly details output format and stage semantics, making it unambiguous.

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 description explains the output format and pagination behavior in detail, giving clear context on how to page through results and interpret the count-only mode (limit=0). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the backup-focused siblings (create/prune) are implicitly distinguished by the read-only nature of listing. No explicit exclusion guidance, but usage context is strong.

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