sieve_get_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read the content') and the multi-tool restore chaining, but says nothing about return format, whether the backup content is text or binary, or any access prerequisites. Adequate but with real disclosure gaps for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, workflow second. Every sentence earns its place and the selection-relevant information leads.

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?

For a small 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the description covers what it does and the key follow-on workflow. Without an output schema, one might wish for a note on the shape of the returned content, but that is the only gap.

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%, with the file parameter already stating it must match sieve_list_backups output and the account fields documented. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the sibling's overwrite flag. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the content of a local backup.' This distinguishes it from sieve_list_backups, which is only named indirectly in the schema. Clear enough to select without opening the schema, but the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to sieve_put_script for the restore use case and flags the overwrite: true condition. There is no stated 'when not to use' (e.g., call sieve_list_backups first to obtain the file name), but the primary workflow is unambiguous.

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