list_archives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the read-only nature of sealed archives and that open archives still accept programmes — real domain semantics the schema cannot express. It does not, however, state that the call itself is a safe read, nor mention pagination, result size, or empty-list behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then two supporting sentences with no filler. The sentence enumerating returned fields overlaps with the output schema, which is mildly redundant, but the domain note about open vs. sealed archives earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it does so lightly. It supplies the essential domain model (sealed = read-only, open = accepting programmes) that makes the returned sealed status interpretable. Only the relationship to adjacent read tools like get_archive is left unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for at the argument level.

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 with an explicit scope qualifier: "List all archive files (open and sealed)." An agent can distinguish this from archive-mutating siblings like archive_pending_programmes. It does not, however, name the closely related read siblings (get_archive, get_archived_programme, verify_archive), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only implied by the word "all" — the agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point that precedes get_archive. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion such as "for a single archive use get_archive," and no mention of prerequisites or scope of freshness.

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