Get Backup Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the report covers storage, integrity evidence, pending changes, and checkpoint health, which is useful content, but it discloses no further behavioral traits such as cost, freshness, or scope of the reporting.

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 no filler, and the scope of the report is front-loaded immediately after the verb. Every word contributes to describing the returned content.

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 parameters, a coverage-complete schema, an output schema, and annotations that already carry the read-only/idempotent profile, the description covers what is needed to call the tool correctly. It is only slightly thin on routing guidance relative to its many siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Schema coverage is also 100%.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates the four data categories returned (active-project storage, integrity evidence, pending changes, automatic-checkpoint health). This tells an agent what the call yields, though it never uses the word 'backup' or explicitly contrasts itself with the snapshot siblings, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the snapshot/restore siblings (verify_project_snapshot, list_project_snapshots, etc.), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the topic wording.

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