Search Archive

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: result ordering (newest first), strict AND matching semantics ('every word in query must match'), and the data source ('read from Arc's own data file'). It doesn't cover return shape or empty-result behavior, but it meaningfully lowers call uncertainty.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the matching rule and parameter hint. No filler; each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-required-param search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, match semantics, and data source. It omits only return-field detail, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 nonetheless adds semantics not present in the schema: the AND-matching rule for query words and the precise meaning of reason 'auto'. These directly affect how query is constructed, so it earns above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: search tabs that Arc archived or the user closed, explicitly scoped to the sidebar's Archive. This is a distinctive resource that separates it from history search, though it does not name the sibling search_history to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Offers guidance for the reason parameter ('use reason auto to see only what Arc archived on its own'), which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs search_history or other retrieval siblings, so tool selection guidance is only implied.

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