List archived protocol groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that the tool returns soft-deleted protocol groups and is paginated. It does not mention permissions, return structure, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information (soft-deleted, paginated), though it is somewhat under-specified, it remains appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 list tool with an output schema and two conventional parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and pagination. However, given the many sibling list tools, it would benefit from explicit differentiation and parameter context, so it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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%; the description does not explain 'limit' or 'after_cursor'. While the parameter names are conventional, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already implies, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 identifies the resource (protocol groups) and the scope (soft-deleted), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_protocol_groups'. The phrase 'Soft-deleted protocol groups, paginated' is a fragment but conveys the purpose effectively, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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. The term 'soft-deleted' implies it is for archived items, but there is no explicit mention of using other list tools for active groups or any exclusions.

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