backlog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses key behavioral traits: read-only nature ('view-only'), return format ('JSON array'), and side-effect profile ('not restored'). Minor deduction for lacking edge case documentation (e.g., invalid segment handling), but covers essential safety characteristics.

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?

Three sentences efficiently structured: first defines the operation, second clarifies safety constraints, third states prerequisites. No redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Fully complete for the tool's complexity. Despite lacking a formal output schema, the description specifies the return format ('JSON array'). The prerequisite workflow (discover via task_archive_list, then load) is documented, leaving no critical gaps for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by linking the segment parameter to its discovery mechanism via the sibling tool task_archive_list, providing essential semantic context for obtaining valid parameter values.

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 uses specific verbs ('Load and return') and identifies the exact resource ('tasks from an archive segment'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'task_archive' by emphasizing 'view-only' and explicitly stating archived tasks are 'not restored to the active database', preventing confusion with restore operations.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance ('Use task_archive_list to discover available segments first') which functions as a 'when-to-use' rule. It also includes negative guidance ('not restored... this is view-only') to prevent misuse, effectively defining the tool's scope against alternatives.

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