get_archive_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or how it behaves in terms of output format. The description is minimal and lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 two short, effective sentences. The first states the action, the second explains the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (table names and columns) and why it is useful (for SQL queries). It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not delve into edge cases or technical details, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which 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 the tool's function: 'Get the archive database table names and their columns.' It uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource, making it distinct from siblings like query_archive_sql, which executes queries, and get_sync_status, which checks sync status.

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?

It gives clear context for use: 'Useful for understanding what data is available for SQL queries.' This implies it should be used before querying, and it differentiates itself from query_archive_sql. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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