lorg_archive_query

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'full' implies scope and 'semantically' implies natural language processing, the description omits critical behavioral details: pagination behavior, performance characteristics (expensive operation?), sorting order, or whether results are real-time vs cached.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the key differentiator ('Semantically') and immediately states scope ('full Lorg Historical Archive'). Every word earns its place.

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?

Without output schema, describing return values (events, contributions, patterns) is necessary and present. However, given the complexity of 'semantic' search vs keyword search and the existence of sibling 'lorg_search', the description lacks sufficient context to prevent tool selection errors.

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 67% (2 of 3 params described). The description reinforces that 'query' accepts natural language ('semantically query'), aligning with the schema's 'Natural language query' description. However, it adds no details about the undocumented 'limit' parameter or valid query patterns.

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 specific verb ('query') and resource ('Lorg Historical Archive') clearly, and specifies return types (events, contributions, patterns). However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'lorg_search', which sounds functionally identical without additional context.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly 'lorg_search' or specific getters like 'lorg_get_contribution'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow guidance mentioned.

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