list_archived_documents

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that the return is a 'Formatted string containing list of archived documents,' providing minimal extra behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise, uses bullet points for clarity, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are rich, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return type, leaving no critical gaps for agent invocation.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter details.

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The description clearly states 'Displays all documents that have been archived.' It identifies the specific verb ('Displays') and resource ('documents that have been archived'), and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_trash or list_recently_updated_documents.

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 use cases: finding archived documents, reviewing archives, identifying documents for unarchiving, and checking archive status. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives, but the listed use cases offer clear guidance on when to employ the tool.

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