ask_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't explain what 'bounded' means (e.g., scoped to certain chats, time range, size limits), whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when no matches are found, or what the response format resembles. The behavior around the 'limit', 'since', and 'until' parameters and how they constrain retrieval remains opaque.

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 extremely brief at one short sentence, which is minimal in length. However, this brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, since it fails to convey the essential purpose and behavioral details needed to use the tool correctly.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is inadequate. The meaning of 'bounded', the relationship between the query/chat_id/limit/since/until/media_type parameters, and what the tool returns are all unaddressed. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured metadata.

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 0%, and the 6 parameters are entirely undocumented in the description. The description adds no semantic meaning to parameters like media_type, since, until, or limit beyond their raw names. With zero schema coverage, the description needed to explain parameter semantics and completely failed to do so.

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 'Answer using bounded local archive retrieval' indicates the tool retrieves from a local archive, but the verb+resource is vague. It's unclear whether 'answer' means it generates an answer, returns matching archive content, or performs a search. Among siblings like search_messages, get_message_context, and retrieve_evidence, this does not clearly distinguish itself as a distinct retrieval operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like search_messages and retrieve_evidence present, the description gives no exclusions, conditions, or context for when 'bounded local archive retrieval' is the right choice vs the other retrieval tools. The term 'bounded' hints at a constraint but isn't explained.

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