list_archived_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'displays' and 'returns formatted string', which implies a read-only operation without side effects. However, it doesn't disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for a tool listing archived documents.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bulleted usage guidelines and return format. Each sentence earns its place, though the bulleted list format is slightly verbose compared to a more concise prose approach.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of purpose and usage. However, it lacks details about the return format beyond 'formatted string' - no information about structure, fields included, or how to interpret the output. Given the complexity of listing documents, more output details would be beneficial.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on usage scenarios and return format.

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The description clearly states the tool 'Displays all documents that have been archived' - a specific verb ('displays') and resource ('archived documents'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_collections' or 'list_trash' by focusing specifically on archived documents, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'unarchive_document' or 'restore_document'.

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?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list: 'Find specific archived documents', 'Review what documents have been archived', 'Identify documents for possible unarchiving', and 'Check archive status of workspace content'. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_documents' or 'list_trash'.

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