List backups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the operation is read-only, uses a simple GET, and works in read-only mode. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentences; the core behavior and read-only nature are front-loaded, and the documentation link is appended as a useful supplement. No redundant words.

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 simple parameterless list operation, the description covers what it does, its read-only safety profile, and where to find more details. It does not describe the response shape, which could matter without an output schema, but the scope and operation are clear enough for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics to cover. The description adds useful scope context ('all backups across all backup volumes') and confirms no input is needed, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 all backups across all backup volumes'. This clearly differentiates from siblings like backupvolume_list or backup_get by specifying scope ('across all backup volumes').

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 this is a plain read-only GET and explicitly says it is available in --read-only mode, which helps the agent know it is safe to invoke in constrained contexts. It does not explicitly compare to alternative backup-list tools, but the scope phrasing implies when this tool is appropriate.

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