List rollback backups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance (backups are created automatically before change/deletion) but says nothing about ordering, recency, pagination beyond the limit param, or what a backup entry looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, its origin, and the scope of items covered, with no filler or redundancy.

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, non-destructive three-parameter list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It still leaves open what a backup record contains (timestamp, item identity, whether a restore is possible) and in what order results are returned, which matters for choosing a rollback target.

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?

At 67% schema description coverage the schema does most of the work, and the description adds no parameter detail at all. It does not clarify valid 'kind' values (e.g., whether 'helper:<type>' sub-forms correspond to the same helpers listed by list_helpers) or that items can be filtered by original item_id.

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 plus resource ('List rollback backups') and adds the crucial scope that these are snapshots taken automatically before automations, scripts, or helpers were changed or deleted. That distinguishes it from siblings like list_automations or get_audit_log without naming them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this before attempting a rollback of an automation/script/helper. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives such as get_audit_log or get_history, and no statement about whether this is required before restoring.

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