sitebay_backup_list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists backups but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens if no backups exist. The description is minimal and misses key operational details for a tool with potential data implications.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more concise by integrating parameter details into the main text.

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 has an output schema), the description is partially complete. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description lacks context on authentication, error handling, or sibling tool relationships. It meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps in operational guidance.

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 description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: 'fqdn' is explained as 'The site domain' and 'number_to_fetch' as 'Number of backup entries to fetch (default: 1)'. This clarifies parameter purposes but doesn't provide format details (e.g., domain structure) or constraints. With 0% coverage, it partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 tool's purpose: 'List available backup commits for point-in-time restore.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('backup commits') with a clear objective ('for point-in-time restore'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sitebay_backup_restore', which might be a related but distinct operation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing site or backup, or compare it to siblings like 'sitebay_backup_restore' for restore operations. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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