sieve_list_backups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that backups are automatic, local, and returned newest first, which is valuable beyond the name. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether results are paginated or capped, or how long backups are retained, which matters 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, zero waste. The core purpose and the key behavioral trait (ordering) are front-loaded, with the workflow hint second.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, where it came from, ordering, and the natural follow-up tool. Minor gaps remain around result size limits and retention, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters (name, accountId, accountName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List local backups"), explains their origin ("taken automatically before scripts were overwritten or deleted"), and gives ordering ("newest first"). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling sieve_get_backup, which retrieves a single backup.

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: "Use with sieve_get_backup to undo a change" names the follow-up tool and the workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a note on when listing is preferable to direct script inspection, so it stops 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.