list_vps_backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'every' to signal exhaustive listing; it does not mention pagination, ordering, auth, or return-size limits, but for a simple list tool under rich annotations this is acceptable.

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 compact sentence front-loads the action and scope with zero filler. Every word 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 low-complexity, read-only, idempotent list operation with one required parameter, the definition is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the absence of an output schema, so the exact return shape of the backup list must be inferred rather than documented.

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 schema has one required string parameter, vps_id, with 0% description coverage. The description's 'this VPS' confirms that vps_id identifies the target VPS but provides no format, example, or validation details. This is minimally adequate for a single obvious ID parameter but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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 concrete verb (List), a specific resource (backups), and a clear scope (of this VPS). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_vps_backup or restore_vps_backup without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 carries implied usage: use this when you need a read-only inventory of a VPS's backups. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use create/delete/restore operations, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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