Backup copies

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that backups are saved automatically after assistant changes, stored as .aseprite copies, never overwrite the artist's files, and are returned newest first. This is useful non-destructive context, and there is no contradiction with the annotation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and sort order, followed by the backup mechanism and restore workflow. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), and the description covers what it lists, how backups are created, that it is safe, and how to use the results with aseprite_open. It does not spell out the exact output item structure, but enough is provided for an agent to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the limit parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that results are ordered 'newest first', which tells the agent that the limit truncates the most recent backups, adding value beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('the automatic backup copies'), and a sort order ('newest first'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like aseprite_history or aseprite_sprites. It also clarifies that these are assistant-generated backups, not the artist's original files.

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?

It provides clear context for when backup copies exist (a few seconds after the assistant changes a sprite) and explicitly points to aseprite_open for restoring a backup. It does not discuss when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like aseprite_history, but the intended workflow is clear.

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