backup_restore_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action (extract to temporary location and verify) but fails to explain potential dangers, whether it modifies any state, cleanup behavior, permission requirements, or return values. The '[DANGEROUS]' warning is vague and does not clarify risks.

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 very short (one sentence with a warning), which achieves conciseness but lacks structure. It does not use bullet points or separate sections, making it less scannable. While brevity is positive, the absence of parameter explanations or structured details reduces its effectiveness.

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 of 3 parameters (no descriptions), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain side effects, return values, cleanup, error conditions, or parameter details. A dangerous operation like a restore test requires far more context for safe agent use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters (file, targetDir, confirm), and the description does not explain any of them. It does not clarify that 'file' likely refers to a backup file path, 'targetDir' to a temporary location, or the role of 'confirm' (e.g., safety confirmation). With no param guidance, the description adds negligible value beyond the schema.

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: 'Test restoring a backup by extracting to a temporary location and verifying contents'. It uses a specific verb ('Test restoring') and resource ('backup'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like backup_integrity_check and backup_status by indicating it performs a full restore test rather than just checking integrity or status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as backup_integrity_check which may be safer. The '[DANGEROUS]' tag implies caution but does not explain specific usage contexts, prerequisites, or when to avoid using the tool.

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