List Wordpress Backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: automatic file backups daily, database backups hourly, 30-day retention, and up to one on-demand backup per type. It does not mention auth requirements or pagination beyond the limit cap, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then retention/return semantics, then the handoff to sibling tools. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (newest `limit` entries plus `total`, each with an `id`) and the retention model. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents domain, limit and staging; the description adds the important caveat that on-demand backups are always included regardless of `limit`, and that the response carries a `total`. The files/database backup cadence implicitly explains the `type` enum, though the enum values themselves are never spelled out in prose.

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 a Cloud for WordPress site's backups") plus ordering ("newest first"), and explicitly names the two sibling tools the returned ids feed into (restore_wordpress_backup, delete_wordpress_backup). An agent can distinguish this from create_wordpress_backup or delete_wordpress_backup without opening any schema.

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?

Implied usage is clear and explicit in the follow-on sentence: call this to obtain ids for restore_wordpress_backup (one files id + one database id) or delete_wordpress_backup. It does not state any when-not conditions or mention the type/staging filters as alternatives, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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