Get backup (via backup volume)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses the non-obvious write-access requirement and identifies the action as volume-scoped, which is important context for invocation. It does not describe response shape or error behavior, but for a simple get operation this is a strong level of transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the critical auth caveat and sibling alternative. The docs link is additional but useful. No wasted 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the volume-scoped context, the auth requirement, and the read-only sibling. The only real gap is the lack of explicit parameter role definitions, but the tool name and description together make the mapping reasonably inferable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'backup volume' maps to name and 'specific backup' maps to backupName; it never explicitly states what each parameter means or what formats/values are expected. This is minimal semantic help.

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 specific backup belonging to a backup volume via the volume-scoped action.' It also differentiates this tool from backup_get by explicitly mentioning the volume-scoped action and the write-access requirement, making its role among siblings clear.

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 gives clear usage direction: use this volume-scoped action, requires write access, and explicitly names backup_get as the alternative for read-only introspection. This is a concrete when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use signal.

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