List archived rule groups

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds the insight that these are 'soft-deleted' and that results are 'paginated,' which is useful. However, it does not clarify permissions, recoverability, or other behavioral nuances, leaving gaps.

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 short, bordering on under-specification. While concise, it omits needed context, so it does not fully earn its place as a standalone explanation.

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?

This is a simple list tool with an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions makes the tool less complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it effectively.

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 for parameter meaning. It only hints at pagination via 'paginated' but does not explain `limit` or `after_cursor`, their defaults, or how they interact.

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 'Soft-deleted rule groups, paginated' clearly identifies the resource (rule groups) and scope (soft-deleted/archived), distinguishing it from sibling `list_rule_groups`. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' in the description, relying on the title for clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `list_rule_groups` or other archived list tools. No context or exclusions are given.

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