get_archived_programme

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the programme is read-only and cannot be modified or restored to the live DB. It also enumerates the returned content (metadata, hypotheses, trials, beliefs, conclusions), though it omits failure behavior for a missing ID or any auth requirements.

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 core action, and no filler. There is mild redundancy between 'from its archive file' and 'from the archive SQLite file', which keeps it just below the top mark.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema that covers the return structure, the description supplies the essential immutability context and a summary of returned content. The remaining gap is minor: no explicit sibling routing or error/edge-case notes.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents it as the archived programme ID (read-only, cannot be restored). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond restating that it reads an archived programme, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get an archived programme's details from its archive file') and makes clear it operates on archived data rather than the live store, implicitly distinguishing it from siblings like get_archive or list_programmes. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'archived' framing and the read-only constraint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_archive, list_archives, or list_programmes, nor on how to obtain a valid programme_id. A capable agent can infer the context but nothing routes it decisively.

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