list_archives

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly does not repeat that. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (project, size, SHA-256, 3-2-1 coverage, destinations) and the filtering behavior, which goes beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict any annotation, and it clearly indicates a safe, read-only operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List the archives'), and every phrase adds value. The first sentence defines the scope and output content; the second sentence covers optional filters with an example. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint=true, the description completely covers what the tool does: it lists archives with specific fields, and it explains each filter. The agent knows what to expect in the response and how to narrow results. The sibling tools (e.g., list_archive_files, archive_detail) are clearly distinct, and the context makes the tool's role in the workspace understandable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the name filter as 'case-insensitive substring' with an illustrative example ('johnson' to find the Johnson family album), and by explaining that project_id is 'one container' and collection_id is 'one Collection within a project'. This provides contextual richness that helps an agent understand the exact filtering behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('archives'), and immediately clarifies it means 'the leaves actually written to media'. It lists exactly what information is included (project, size, SHA-256, 3-2-1 coverage, destination details), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects, list_collections, and archive_detail. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explicitly states that the tool can be narrowed with optional filters (project_id, collection_id, name) and provides an example for the name filter. It also implies the tool lists all archives with summary info, which guides the agent to prefer this for broad queries versus archive_detail for deeper detail. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which would be ideal.

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