Read backup

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the path provenance and the intended downstream uses, but says nothing about what happens with a stale/missing path, whether reads are full-document or lazy, or how large snapshot payloads behave.

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 compact sentence with the key constraint (path comes from backup_list) front-loaded and the use cases trailing. Efficient, though the parenthetical-plus-em-dash construction makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring read-only behavior, the description covers what is needed to invoke it. The only gap is that with no output schema, the shape of the returned snapshot is left implicit.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including a concrete path example and dot-path semantics for select. The description adds genuine provenance meaning for path (where to obtain it) but nothing about select, so it sits at the schema baseline plus a small increment.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reads a snapshot") and implicitly contrasts with the listing sibling by saying the path comes "from backup_list". An agent can tell this is the fetch-by-path counterpart to backup_list, though "basis for comparison or restoring" is a little fuzzy about what the read actually yields.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context (comparison, restoring) and, more usefully, tells the agent where valid paths originate: backup_list output or the backup field of a write action. No explicit exclusion or error-condition guidance, but the prerequisite chaining is clear.

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