Get backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states 'plain read-only GET' and notes availability in '--read-only mode', which transparently indicates the operation has no side effects. It could go further by describing not-found behavior or response shape, but the read-only disclosure is meaningful.

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 extremely concise: one main clause plus a useful parenthetical and a docs link. No filler words. The key identifying information is front-loaded, and the documentation reference is placed at the end without disrupting readability.

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 one-parameter read-only GET with no output schema and no annotations, this description is reasonably complete. It states what is retrieved, how it is retrieved, and points to official documentation. It could mention response contents or 404 behavior, but the docs link partially compensates for those omissions.

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 only parameter is id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that the id identifies a single backup, matching the field name. It does not add detail about the id format or how to obtain valid ids, but for a single simple parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single backup by id'. It also clarifies the operation is a plain read-only GET, which distinguishes it from mutation-style backup operations in the sibling list. This is clear, specific, and unlikely to be confused with list-based backup tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving one backup when an id is known, and its read-only nature is explicitly noted. It does not explicitly name backup_list or other sibling tools as alternatives for listing, but the 'single backup by id' wording gives sufficient contextual guidance.

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