List backups (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 behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the write-access requirement, the volume-scoped nature, and provides a docs link. It does not mention error behavior or whether the operation has side effects, but 'list' plus the access caveat covers the most important behavioral trait.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a clear caveat and an alternative plus a docs link. No redundant filler.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, and provides a reference link. The main gaps are lack of explicit parameter definition and a missing distinction from the similar 'backupvolume_backup_list_by_volume' sibling, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 'name' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies that 'name' refers to the backup volume, but it never explicitly states the parameter's meaning or expected format. This is inferable but not fully specified.

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: 'List backups belonging to a backup volume via the volume-scoped action.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic backup listing and other siblings. The title reinforces the resource scope.

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 explicitly names an alternative ('use backup_list for read-only introspection') and gives a condition ('requires write access'). However, it does not disambiguate from the closely named sibling 'backupvolume_backup_list_by_volume', so guidance is strong but not complete.

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