outcomes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' and 'highest-value read' imply a read-only operation, but it does not state permissions, side-effect guarantees, pagination, or return shape. It adds conceptual context (results vs working notes) but leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero waste, front-loading what the tool lists before adding selection guidance and sibling routing.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description supplies strong purpose and routing context. It omits return-shape details, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists, but the conceptual output ('what the work actually concluded') is clear.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the optional initiative parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline for well-described schemas.

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?

State a specific verb 'List' and resource 'archival OUTCOMES', explains that these are final results, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings trace and ideas. An agent can identify what this tool returns versus adjacent tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says this is the highest-value read for a fresh agent and routes to alternatives: trace for walking sources back, ideas for proposals that are not yet results. The when-to-use and sibling alternatives are directly stated.

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