list_backups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output fields (path, modified time, size, line count, label), the ordering ('newest first'), and the fact that no FC connection is needed. It does not mention potential error cases or side effects, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, and the second sentence explains the return values and usage context, making it efficiently structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how the output connects to restore_config. However, it does not mention edge cases like an empty backup directory or error handling, which would make it fully complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist, but it does explain the return values which helps the agent interpret the tool's output.

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 states a specific action ('List saved config backups'), the resource ('config backups'), the location ('under ./backups/'), and ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like backup_config and restore_config by focusing on listing rather than creating or restoring.

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 clear usage context: 'No FC needed' tells the agent this can be used without a connection, and 'so you can pick one to replay with restore_config(path)' implies its role as a precursor to restore. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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