db_backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the backup methods (pg_dump, mysqldump, sqlite3 CLI), the sandboxed path constraint (BERTH_BACKUP_DIR), and the default location (cwd). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like performance impact during backup, permissions needed, or error handling, which are relevant for a backup operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a database backup'), followed by bullet points for database-specific methods and a concise note about path constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, methods, and path constraints, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could benefit from more details on parameter usage or error scenarios to be fully comprehensive.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some context by mentioning 'Paths are sandboxed to BERTH_BACKUP_DIR', which relates to the output_path parameter, but it doesn't explain connection_id or provide format/syntax details for either parameter. This partial compensation results in a baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Create a database backup') and distinguishes it from siblings like db_restore (which restores backups) and db_query (which queries data). It also specifies the resource (database) and mentions the specific backup methods for different database types, providing clear differentiation.

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 implies usage by mentioning database types (PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite) and the sandboxed path constraint, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_restore or other database tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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