pipedrive_list_archived_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is part of the Projects add-on and that the Projects API is in public beta, which are important behavioral traits indicating potential instability or extra setup needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and supported details. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers core functionality, optional filters, and important context (add-on, beta). It does not detail pagination or return format, but these are not critical for selection.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds limited value by grouping optional filters (filter, phase, status). This aligns with baseline 3 for high schema 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?

Clearly states it lists archived projects, with optional filtering by filter, phase, or status. Distinguishes from sibling tools like pipedrive_list_projects (active projects) and pipedrive_search_projects (search). The verb 'list' and resource 'archived projects' are specific.

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 indicates when to use this tool (list archived projects) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tool names imply other listing tools for non-archived projects, providing implicit context.

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