Cli list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false for what presents as a list operation, an unusual profile the description never addresses. The description adds only a generic Raises note and a vague 'Response object from the POST request', leaving the mutation risk and return behavior unexplained.

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 Args/Returns/Raises structure is scannable and the one-line purpose is front-loaded, but the parameter lines are repetitive filler that could be compressed. Neither wasteful nor tight.

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?

An 11-parameter tool with no output schema, near-zero annotation detail, and no explanation of what is listed, whether filters combine, or how output format flags interact. The Returns block ('The response object from the POST request') leaves the agent unable to predict the result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry all 11 parameters, and it does list them. However most glosses merely restate the name ('filter_type: Filter type', 'sort: Sort field', 'as_json: Output as JSON'), and only a few ('after/before: snapshots after/before timestamp', 'as_csv: CSV or fields to include', 'extra_data') add meaning. Partial compensation only.

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 verb and resource ('Execute archivebox list command') but the object of the listing is never named (snapshots? archiveresults?), and it does not distinguish itself from sibling list-like tools such as archivebox_get_snapshots or archivebox_get_any. The purpose is inferable but not sharp.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over archivebox_get_snapshots, and no note on prerequisites or the fact that all 11 parameters default so the call is safe with no arguments. The agent must guess its place among 17 siblings.

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