backup_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, and the description lists return fields, but it says nothing about pagination behavior beyond limit, ordering (which field sorts results), whether results are limited to a window, or any side effects. As a historical/job-listing tool with no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then enumerates return fields efficiently. Reasonably concise, though it could be considered slightly thin given the number of behavioral aspects it omits.

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 has only 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, so complexity is low. The description adequately covers purpose and return fields. However, for a backup-history listing tool with no annotations, it lacks details on ordering/sorting of jobs, default scope, and whether results are scoped by time window — minor completeness gaps for an otherwise simple tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit, companyId) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds the 'active company' concept that contextualizes the companyId override, but doesn't explain the limit semantics beyond what the schema's max/default already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('recent backup jobs for the active company') and explicitly enumerates the return fields (job ID, status, creation date, file size, file inclusion). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like backup_create, backup_status, and backup_restore, which are different operations on the same domain.

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 states it lists jobs 'for the active company', which provides context on scope, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions distinguishing it from backup_status or backup_restore_status. It implies read-only usage but doesn't provide alternative tool recommendations.

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