List archived asset groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the soft-delete semantics, that definitions and historical membership are preserved by Tenable, and that archived groups stop appearing in active views. It does not mention read-only safety or return format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with useful structure via dash and semicolon. It is efficient and each clause adds context. The phrase 'by Tenable' is slightly extraneous but does not undermine conciseness.

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's simplicity (two optional params, output schema present), the description adequately explains the archived concept and pagination. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use active vs archived lists, but overall it is complete enough for a list operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Page through' suggests pagination, but it does not explain the `limit` or `after_cursor` semantics, cursor format, or how defaults behave. The added value for parameters is minimal.

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 operation ('page through'), the resource ('archived asset groups'), and differentiates from active lists by explaining soft-deletion via `archive_asset_group`. It also clarifies that these groups are excluded from active views, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `list_asset_groups`.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to view soft-deleted asset groups that no longer appear in active views. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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