get_archived_notes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool returns a JSON string and describes the parameter, omitting details like whether results are paginated, ordered, or require authentication. No side effects or constraints are mentioned.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with a single sentence defining the tool's purpose followed by a parameter description in docstring format. There is no unnecessary information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns and the parameter's purpose, but lacks context on ordering, default behavior without query, or integration with sibling tools like archive_note.

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 0%, but the description adds semantic value by explaining the query parameter: 'A string to match against the title and text.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal definition (type string, default empty).

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 clearly states 'Get only archived notes,' specifying both the action (get) and the resource (archived notes). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pinned_notes and get_trashed_notes. However, it could be more explicit about returning all archived notes optionally filtered by query.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_keyword, find, or get_trashed_notes. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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