list_archive_files

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that SHA-256 is null for older records, that pagination is supported, and the nuanced case of 'indexed: false' versus empty archive. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds critical behavioral details without contradiction.

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 relatively long but each sentence adds important nuance. It front-loads the main purpose and then supplies details. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured and free of fluff.

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 output schema, the description adequately describes the returned data (path, size, SHA-256) and potential edge cases (null SHA, indexed false). It covers all needed context for an agent to understand behavior and output format.

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 the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics (e.g., mentions pagination for very large archives), but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 returns a file manifest for one archive, listing relative path, size, and SHA-256. It distinguishes from siblings like list_archives and archive_detail, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to use this tool (combine with archive_detail, for client-ready lists) and provides context about the data source (catalog index vs re-reading). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives beyond the combination hint.

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