get_logs_config_archive_readers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('returns'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Returns all read roles a given archive is restricted to.' It's front-loaded with the core action, uses clear terminology, and contains no redundant words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'read roles' are, how they're structured in the response, or any dependencies (e.g., archive must exist). For a tool that likely returns structured authorization data, more context on the return format and usage constraints would be helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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's purpose: 'Returns all read roles a given archive is restricted to.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('read roles'), and scope ('a given archive is restricted to'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' or 'get_logs_config_archives', which might handle different aspects of archive configuration.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an archive ID), exclusions, or related tools for broader archive management. Given the sibling list includes many 'get_logs_config_archive*' tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context.

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