backup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It includes '[SAFE]' indicating non-destructiveness, but fails to mention required permissions, potential timeouts, or what happens if the directory doesn't exist. The description is too sparse to be fully transparent.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. The '[SAFE]' tag adds useful context. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from a brief note on the parameter.

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?

With no output schema and a single parameter left unexplained, the description omits important details like return format and parameter meaning. Given the tool's simplicity, it should be more complete to aid correct invocation.

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 explain the 'path' parameter. It does not mention 'path' at all, leaving the agent to guess that the parameter refers to the backup directory location. This is a critical gap.

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: 'Check backup status by listing files in the backup directory with sizes and dates'. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like backup_integrity_check and backup_restore_test by focusing on file listing rather than integrity or restoration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tag '[SAFE]' implies read-only, but there is no explicit context for usage, conditions, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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