Archive Report Brief

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description appropriately confirms no side effects. It adds transparency about the tool making 'Two Claude calls total', which is beyond annotations, and details the comprehensive output format.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and lists inputs and outputs. It is efficient but could benefit from structure like bullet points for clarity. Still, it is concise given the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (7 params, output schema exists), the description covers inputs, outputs, usage context ('first for any document workflow'), and contrasts with siblings. It is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description lists the same parameters (title, audience, themes, etc.) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a 'complete archive research package' for documents, PDFs, or briefs, with specific verbs like 'archive research' and outputs like color cards. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming the tools it replaces (archive_search, get_colour_card, cliche_breaker, agent_brief).

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 says 'Use this first for any document workflow' and explains it replaces chaining multiple tools, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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