get_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the result (metadata fields plus the programme list), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether the archive may be sealed/locked, or pagination of the programme list — relevant for something that can return many programmes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence lightly duplicates what an output schema already conveys, but nothing is wasted and it is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and result content adequately; the only real gap is disambiguation from sibling archive tools.

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?

Only one parameter, archive_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g. how to obtain an archive_id or what form it takes).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get details about an archive') and enumerates what is returned (metadata: path, sealed status, hash; plus archived programmes). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like list_archives, get_archived_programme, or verify_archive, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only signal that this is per-archive retrieval is the required archive_id, leaving the agent to guess how it differs from list_archives or get_archived_programme.

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