List write backups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral fact: every write produces a backup copy in .rpgmaker-mcp/backups, including a few files outside data/. It does not say what a listed entry looks like, ordering, or whether backups can be restored, which is a notable gap for a no-annotation 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 sentences, no filler, and the mechanism/location is front-loaded before the scoping instructions. Every clause carries information.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers origin, location, and scoping. It still leaves the return shape and the relationship to sibling restore/undo tools unstated, which is a meaningful gap given the absence of structured metadata.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the lone parameter is named 'table' but the description reveals it also accepts a project-relative path such as js/plugins.js, and that it is optional (omitting it lists all). This adds meaning the bare schema string type does not convey.

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 (list) and resource (write backups), and explains the mechanism that creates them (every write copies the previous file into .rpgmaker-mcp/backups). This is enough to separate it from siblings like write_history, rollback_data, and undo_writes, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Explains how to scope the listing (a data file, or a project-relative path like js/plugins.js), which implies when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over rollback_data, undo_writes, or write_history, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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