liara_list_backups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List backups') but does not describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, or what the output format looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions, pagination), usage guidance, and details on output format. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for effective tool invocation is insufficient, especially for a list operation with pagination options.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it does not explain relationships between 'page/perPage' and 'limit/offset' alternatives). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('backups for a database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_create_backup' or 'liara_restore_backup' by focusing on listing rather than creating or restoring, but does not explicitly mention how it differs from other list tools (e.g., 'liara_list_databases').

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing database), exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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