Verify Code Backup

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description usefully adds the mechanics: re-hashing plus validation of entry types, paths, modes, and manifest integrity. However, it says nothing about behavior on a mismatch (does it throw, return a flag, or fail silently), which is the most important trait for a verification tool.

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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it packs four validated attributes into one clause without prioritizing them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a verification tool the description omits failure semantics and any prerequisite context, leaving a real gap for correct invocation interpretation.

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?

With a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning. "The selected backup" only loosely ties snapshotId to the target and adds no format, selection, or validity semantics beyond the schema's uuid type.

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 pair ("re-hash" and "validate") against a specific resource ("the selected backup"), so the agent knows it is an integrity-check operation rather than a read, restore, or delete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_backup_status, which also touches snapshot state.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The agent can infer the tool is for verifying integrity, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over get_backup_status or preview_project_restore.

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