spine_list_backups

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only, does not write JSON', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also mentions validation capability. However, it does not specify how validation results are returned (e.g., errors in output).

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently covers resource, action, filtering, validation, and read-only nature. No redundant words.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, validation, and safety (read-only). It lacks details about the output format (e.g., file names, timestamps), but is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the schema (filter by filePath, includeValidation) without adding new semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists Spine JSON backups from backups/, with optional filtering by target filePath and validation. It distinguishes from siblings like spine_restore_backup (restore) and spine_validate_json (validate arbitrary JSON).

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 implies usage for listing backups, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spine_restore_backup or spine_validate_json. No guidance on when not to use it.

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