backup-health

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

Without annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is idempotent. The output format (recommendations) is vague.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly enhanced (e.g., hinting at the output) without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is marginally adequate. It defines the tool's purpose but lacks detail on safety, output structure, or when it should be invoked. For a simple health check, more context (e.g., 'read-only') would improve completeness.

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 meaning beyond the empty schema by clarifying the purpose (health check with recommendations), which is valuable for an agent.

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 clearly states the tool checks backup system health and provides recommendations. It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (backup health), and is distinct from sibling tools like 'backup-flows' and 'list-backups' which cover different aspects of backup management.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when users should prefer this over 'get-backup-flows' or 'list-backups', nor does it mention prerequisites or recommended frequency of use.

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