common-get-archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what an archive result contains, expected size, or whether a database/name is required despite zero required params.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

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 tool with a fully documented schema this is thin: it omits the distinction from common-get-archive-item, doesn't say what is returned, and gives no guidance on the absence of required parameters. An agent could call it, but not confidently over its siblings.

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%; the schema itself fully documents full (diagnostics/unprojected graph), name, and database. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Gets Sitecore database archives" states a clear verb and resource, so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling common-get-archive-item, leaving the agent to infer the scope difference between an archive and an item within an archive.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings like common-get-archive-item and common-restore-archive-item present, an agent gets no signal about which to pick.

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